at I'm aware of it.
-ian
--
Ian Murdock
317-863-2590
http://ianmurdock.com/
"Don't look back--something might be gaining on you." --Satchel Paige
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
lp test it. Furthermore, for the most part, as has
already been pointed out, packages built against stable tend to
work on unstable just fine, particularly if there isn't a three
year gap between releases. The other situations are bugs. As the
comment that started this thread stated, package
et,
I'm in that business too.
> ... going it alone, like when Matthias Klose ran his plans for the gcc 4
> transition past the Debian release team before implementing it in Ubuntu,
> and is now proceeding to implement the same transition in Debian?
Mea culpa.
--
Ian Murdock
317-578-
tu should base on stable if and only if Debian can fix the
release management problems. If, 12 or 18 months from today, Debian
seems no closer to fixing these problems, Debian will deserve what
it gets, and I'll be Ubuntu's biggest chearleader.
In the meantime, let's give Debian a cha
; If you want binary
> compatibility, you need to build a system whose engineering outcome is
> binary compatibility
That's precisely what I'm proposing we should do here! There will never
be a better time.
--
Ian Murdock
317-578-8882 (office)
http://www.progeny.com/
http://ianmurdock
, work with
Debian on putting together a plan for migrating to GCC 4 rather than
just plowing ahead on your own? Going it alone is sure to cause
compatibility problems that make the current ones pale by comparison.
--
Ian Murdock
317-578-8882 (office)
http://www.progeny.com/
http://ianmurdock.com/
"A nerd is someone who uses a telephone to talk to other people about
telephones." --Douglas Adams
On 6/16/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/16/05, Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > glibc. Shipping X.org and GNOME 2.10 adds value, since sarge doesn't
> > ship them. Shipping glibc 2.6.5 vs. glibc 2.6.2 just adds
> > incompatib
> Which 'divergence' do you mean when you reference that -- X.Org/GNOME
> 2.10, or glibc?
glibc. Shipping X.org and GNOME 2.10 adds value, since sarge doesn't
ship them. Shipping glibc 2.6.5 vs. glibc 2.6.2 just adds
incompatibilities.
--
Ian Murdock
317-578-8882 (office)
On 6/16/05, Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hoary (like sarge) is built against 2.3.2.
>
> Breezy (like current sid) is built against 2.3.5.
Why?
--
Ian Murdock
317-578-8882 (office)
http://www.progeny.com/
http://ianmurdock.com/
"A nerd is someone who uses a
html
P.S. - Don't tell me "build from source" is the answer--with a package
system as advanced as Debian's, this shouldn't be necessary. And,
as above, to most of the world, this is a non-started for many reasons.
--
Ian Murdock
317-578-8882 (office)
http://www.progeny.com/
ht
anything, the story would be "Ian Murdock is a dweeb".)
Second, I've been trying to start a private conversation about
this very issue since last November, and my attempts to do
so have largely been ignored. If taking the concern
public is the only way to get it addressed, then so b
ependent, drop-in replacement wrt the rest of the packaging
> system, why *couldn't* we provide the LCC binaries in the same fashion as the
> current lsb package -- as a compatibility layer on top of the existing
> Debian system? This sidesteps the problem of losing certification over
&g
m. We've heard
directly from the biggest ISVs that nothing short of a common
binary core will be viable from their point of view. So,
as with all things in this business, there will be tradeoffs
involved--you'll be free to make changes, at the potential
loss of some, though not n
esult is that
consumers can now buy electrical equipment that work in more places.
--
Ian Murdock
317-578-8882 (office)
http://www.progeny.com/
http://ianmurdock.com/
"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in
the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was
On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 23:22 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 08:34:17AM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
> > On Fri, 2004-12-10 at 00:44 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > Besides that the LCC sounds like an extraordinarily bad idea, passing
> > >
On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 06:16 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 05:07:12PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
> > On Sat, 2004-12-11 at 03:49 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Well, my first question is why, irrespective of how valuable the LSB
> > > itsel
pation would 1. help make the LCC core, community,
and processes better and thus more likely to achieve the
desired result; and 2. help make the eventual differences between
the LCC core and the Debian core smaller, which at least eases
the compatibility problem even if it can't be
On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 14:33 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> Why don't standard ABIs suffice?
Because the LSB bases its certification process on a standard ABI/API
specification alone, and this approach simply hasn't worked.
--
Ian Murdock
317-578-8882 (office)
http://www.prog
be, by definition, as long as its core is different from the LCC core).
--
Ian Murdock
317-578-8882 (office)
http://www.progeny.com/
http://ianmurdock.com/
"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in
the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was
va
rce (e.g., White Box Linux) lose them.
But it won't be take it or leave it. If reproducing from
source and/or modifying the core packages is more important to
you than the certifications, you will be able to do that.
--
Ian Murdock
317-578-8882 (office)
http://www.progeny.com/
http://ianmur
On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 23:07 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Can someone provide an example of where the name of a dynamic
> > library itself (i.e., the one in the file system, after the
> > package is unpacked) would chang
On Sat, 2004-12-11 at 03:49 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 03:39:55PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
> > You've just described the way the LSB has done it for years, which thus
> > far, hasn't worked--while there are numerous LSB-certified distros,
&
that's not quite fair; I have found it useful to
> bootstrap a porting effort using lsb-rpm. But for it to be a software
> operating environment and not just a software porting environment, it
> needs to have a non-trivial scope, which means an investment by both
> ISVs and
trongly invite everyone with an interest in this issue to subscribe
to the mailing list and participate.
--
Ian Murdock
317-578-8882 (office)
http://www.progeny.com/
http://ianmurdock.com/
"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in
the dusty recesses of their minds wake in th
it to the common binaries, I think we would get more
> mileage from it by supporting them as we do the LSB: with separate
> packages on top of the Debian base system.
That's certainly an option I've thought a lot about--the main
question is, is this good enough to get the ISV suppo
On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 21:17 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Dec 09, Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Let me first say unequivocally that the LCC is very interested in
> > getting Debian involved. The question has always been: How do we do
> > that?
edge cases, then by putting the necessary glue in
place to make sure whatever inertia or otherwise has propagated
the differences for so long doesn't remain an insurmountable obstacle.
And with enough mass, the edge cases become "stuff we agree on".
--
Ian Murdock
317-578-888
eam
sources too. So, increasing compatibility is mostly about using
the same versions of stuff, and making sure we have the glue
in place to deal with any differences in file system layout
and package namespace in the binary packages built from them.
I expect configuration issues to be more sig
quot;
Ok. If attracting ISV and IHV support to Debian isn't a worthwhile
goal in itself, how about helping ensure that Linux remains open and
free in the face of increased commercialization (this was, after all,
Debian's founding goal)? I've long argued that, as the Linux world
discover1 upload
> is made, the bug goes to the ALSA maintainers.
I will add this support to discover2 as well, since it currently suffers
from the same problem as discover1 with respect to blacklisting modules.
--
Ian Murdock
317-578-8882 (office)
http://www.progeny.com/
http://ianmurdock.com/
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of." --Ogden Nash
16) has been tagged "wontfix" so I am
> > not expecting the discover maintainers to solve the problem.
>
> Discover should not try to load drivers for PCI devices AT ALL, we have
> hotplug for this.
That's funny, I've been saying the same thing about hotplug ever since
ntained by a different group
now, but I suspect the reason this was marked "wontfix" was because
discover1 has no built in mechanism for multiple versions of things, so
there's no easy way for it to support both ALSA and OSS at the
same time. discover2, on the other hand, has built
ho have no idea what I'm talking about, this is the
continuation of the thread "status of Progeny projects":
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200310/msg01880.html
--
Ian Murdock
317-578-8882 (office)
http://www.progeny.com/
http://ianmurdock.com/
With all of the new developers that are joining the Project and the
number of new packages that are resulting from their involvement, it's
becoming increasingly difficult, especially for newer users who aren't
exactly sure what to look for, to browse the archive of packages
without becoming overwhe
Is libgr safe to include in the distribution? Or does it suffer from
the GIF patent problem? (I'm leaving it in Incoming for now.)
A few weeks ago, I said...
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 10:38:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Well, we appear to have two options. We can (1) leave the development
release in an unreadable directory, as it is at present; or (2) move the
development releas
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 95 17:51 EST
From: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
How should we distinguish between i386/m68k/sparc specific packages
and architecture neutral packages?
As I envision it, we'll have a structure like this:
debian-1.1/
debian-1.1/binary-alpha/
debian-1.1/binary-alpha
What are the appropriate contact address at Red Hat and Caldera? I'd
like to write to both companies and discuss this issue.
--- Start of forwarded message ---
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 17:37:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re:
On Tue, 26 Dec 1995 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The maintainer listed against each package is derived from the Maintainer
> field of the package as found in the development tree; there is an override
> file that can be amended to get the right results if you have taken over a
> package and do not e
On Wed, 27 Dec 1995, Matthew Bailey wrote:
> For those out there that are interested. I will make space available for
> these ports, and allow each group to maintain uploads for the subtree.
>
> Please contact me if you are in need of an account for this use.
Please don't do this. I'd rather t
On Wed, 27 Dec 1995, Dominik Kubla wrote:
> you might as well add binary-m68k since the first Debian/68k packages
> are starting to appear.
Okay.
> These packages as well as the necessary source patches are currently
> stored at U-Mainz:
>
> ftp.uni-mainz.de:/pub/Linux/devel/debian/dontuse/m6
I moved the tput package out of the distribution and into
/debian/private/project/obsolete a few weeks ago. Is there any reason we
should save it? I didn't delete it because I wasn't sure. I assume that
ncurses supercedes it, as it now has a clear, reset, and tput of its own.
On Thu, 21 Dec 1995, Bruce Perens wrote:
> I have a bunch of bugs I haven't closed out, and there are bugs
> on packages I've transferred to other maintainers that the other
> maintainers have not closed out. I will not be able to deal with
> this until after New Years.
I, too, have some work to
I've created binary-alpha and binary-sparc directories under the
development tree. They're both empty at the moment, of course, but
they're ready for use whenever the development teams have something
to put there.
(BTW, I plan to rename binary to binary-i386 as soon as we finish the
planned FTP r
On Mon, 18 Dec 1995, Bill Mitchell wrote:
> You need the dchanges package. Ian Murdock has been holding off
> moving it into the distribution. The last time I looked, it was
> in ftp.debian.org:/debian/project/experimental.
Actually, it should be in the distribution. Where should I put it?
On Sun, 17 Dec 1995, Stephen Early wrote:
> Logging into wtmp is controlled by the loginShell resource (-ls command
> line option), which also controls whether the shell that is started is a
> login shell. I think that this should be false by default, and that the
> xterm started in the Xsession
On Mon, 18 Dec 1995, Bill Mitchell wrote:
> Fixed in less-290-7, just uploaded to pixar.
Don't you mean ftp.debian.org?
On Tue, 19 Dec 1995, Robert Leslie wrote:
> Ian M., if you are maintaining flex, any chance of getting an ELF
> version uploaded soon? If you'd rather not be bothered, perhaps I
> could even take the package off your hands.
Yes, please do.
On Mon, 11 Dec 1995, Owen S. Dunn wrote:
> No symbolic link /usr/X11 is made to /usr/X11R6 when this package is
> installed.
Is this necessary? I thought the FSSTND said it wasn't.
On Sat, 16 Dec 1995, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > 4. The /etc/init.d/functions file will no longer be used.
>
> Please make it exist and be empty so that existing programs don't
> break. It should contain a comment saying that programs shouldn't use
> it.
Also, don't forget to remove the ". /etc/
I agree with Ian J.
I also agree that compatibility between distributions is paramount, but
I'd rather convince Caldera, Red Hat, etc. to be compatible with System V
than change Debian to be incompatible with it. We should make talking to
them the first step in resolving this incompatibility prob
We should consider adding umsdos support to Debian 1.0. Alot of
people ask about it. We shouldn't present umsdos as an alternative to
installing Debian "for real", but we could at least give our users the
option of using it.
(It might also be useful as a "try it before you install it for real"
f
I was just forwarded this.
It was probably intended for the kbd maintainer, which is no longer me.
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 02:46:05 -0500
From: Chris Fearnley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: (fwd) kbd-0.91 is
On Sat, 16 Dec 1995, Robert Leslie wrote:
> I wouldn't have noticed these except I found the new xterm didn't log
> anything into utmp; should this really be the default?
It should log to both utmp *and* wtmp by default. Could this be changed?
On Wed, 13 Dec 1995, Robert Leslie wrote:
> As long as I've been updating the mount package, I have a question:
>
> The mount package contains a "configuration" file /etc/fstab.sample.
> Would it not be better to include this file in /usr/doc/examples, or
> does something actually depend on it be
On Sun, 10 Dec 1995, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Everybody has problems with truncated uploads, etc. Generally they can't
> fix them by themselves. I wanted to repair this by automating the FTP
> archive process to check against the changes file and then move the file
> into place. Ian
On Sun, 10 Dec 1995 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'd love that feature too. But that either requires a damn good script,
> or that everybody uses the same .changes format.
I think everyone *should* be using the same format. Bill has addressed
my complaints and suggestions about the old dchanges f
On Wed, 13 Dec 1995, Bruce Perens wrote:
> I'll let Ian Murdock decide what he wants to do about this.
Well, we appear to have two options. We can (1) leave the development
release in an unreadable directory, as it is at present; or (2) move the
development release back into a
On Sat, 16 Dec 1995, David Engel wrote:
> There are a couple of serious problems with Ray Dassen's latest gdbm
> and db packages. DO NOT install them unless you want run the risk of
> leaving perl, and consequently dpkg, in an unusable state. The same
> problems exist with Ray's readline package
On Fri, 15 Dec 1995 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ian, are you working on an elf version? If not, I would be willing
> to work on it if it's not too complicated. I've never handled a
> package before, so I'd like to start out easy.
Yes, please do. Thanks!
ing for a maintainer for inn a few weeks ago. I'm not sure
if we found one. Ian?
Thanks,
Ian Murdock.
On Sat, 9 Dec 1995, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am considering a new release of my sysvinit (the last
> official one was 2.50, though debian and Slackware use
On Sun, 10 Dec 1995, Matthew Bailey wrote:
> You didn't miss any mail, I had mailed Ian M. to tell him about this
> but I just got 5 bounced mail messages from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hmm.. Could you forward the bounced messages, with headers, so I
can determine what the problem was (or is)?
On Sun, 10 Dec 1995, Bruce Perens wrote:
> I have removed the Incoming directory from ftp.pixar.com . The files
> there still exist in ftp://ftp.pixar.com/pub/bruce/Debian . I'll delete
> them after about 1 week.
I'm not sure what remains in ftp://ftp.pixar.com/bruce/Debian (and I
can't check at
On Sat, 9 Dec 1995, Matthew Bailey wrote:
> Bill: I will fix the upload permission as soon as I talk to Ian M. he
> seems to be all but off the face of the earth.
I'm here--what do you need to talk to me about?
On Fri, 8 Dec 1995, Bruce Perens wrote:
> I think we should deprecate 1.0 and bump the version number to 1.1, so
> that authentic copies of the release are not confused with the one on
> the Infomagic CD.
This is a good idea.
Regarding the use of a code name for the release: Considering what's
How about installing the kernel headers directly in /usr/include,
rather than linking them into /usr/src? I always assumed this was
standard kernel practice. Apparently, I was wrong. Are there any
opinions on the subject?
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 08:11:43 -0
On Mon, 27 Nov 1995, Bruce Perens wrote:
> From: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 6a. No unnecessary up/down-loading by maintainers.
>
> Is this such a big issue? With your overseas FTP problems you can judge
> that, but I'd feel more confident if the maintainer uploaded the entire
> package a
Bruce: I'll call you in a few hours regarding the InfoMagic problem.
You're probably not awake yet, since it's only 9:30am here in the
midwest. I have to leave for a few hours, but I'll be back home at
2pm.
I'll start writing an announcement. We should try to send it as soon
as possible--tonigh
On Thu, 7 Dec 1995, Austin Donnelly wrote:
> Could the emacs maintainer (Ian M) include this in the next emacs
> release, please ? (I think that version 19.30 is out).
Yes, I'll do that. I'll be getting to 19.30 this weekend.
> Alternatively, does Ian M want to give the emacs and emacs-el
> pa
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 95 23:03 PST
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens)
Please do not start uploading to ftp.debian.org again until Ian
Murdock says it's OK. He's probably going to want to copy the
files over from ftp.pixar.com and so on before he's ready for
new up
-mail to Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> indicating your
: desire to maintain the package. Carbon-copy the message to Jim Robinson
: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, the maintainer of the list of maintainers.
AFAIK at least Jim Robinsons isn't involved in this anymore, so don'
Hello... again.
When I mailed debian-user last Monday about having not read mail for
over a week, I forgot that my wife and I had reserved a moving truck
for the next day. So, a few hours after I mailed debian-user, I had
to box my computer, and I didn't get a chance to reassemble it until
this m
Hello,
I'm back. I've been out of commission for the last week or so with
bronchitis. (Unfortunately, I spent Thanksgiving day in bed as a
result. :/) I've neither read nor replied to any e-mail since last
Sunday, and I haven't done any Debian-related work in the past week,
either.
I've got a
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 00:17:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Matthew Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I am getting 10 - 15 complaints a day about this debian-1.0 and how
it won't install all the way or that it isn't all ELF as advertised
previously. Well I know I bite my teeth and press delete on al
I looks like I need to do a little editing of the noverrides file,
too--I've given away several packages that haven't been updated (a
few of the base packages, for example). I also need to mark a few
bug reports "forwarded", now that we are capable of tracking that.
--- Start of forwarded message ---
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 19:28:10 +0100
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: More info on packages
To: Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi Ian.
I love being on the debian-announce-list. But I must admit, that
the packagedescriptions generally lack. I a
I've moved the new ELF packages that David and Ray are working on to
/debian/private/project/elf. As soon as they give the word, I'll move
them into the distribution. For now, I urge everyone to upgrade their
copies of gcc, libc, etc., as we're going to start wanting to building
ELF packages fair
Package: sysvinit
Version: 2.57b-1
--- Start of forwarded message ---
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 01:03:29 -0500
To: Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: a little bit of flamage about single user mode
From: Daniel Hagerty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I know I saw some mail a
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 02:29:27 GMT
From: Daniel Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
BTW, I like the way their manual is set up and on the web. And I
also like that it seems more geared to open contributions than the
Debian manual.
Hmm.. Well, I did release a draft of the manual in July
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 13:34:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Matthew Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ian M. Are you moving files into the tree? Are you also moving the
files from incoming.uk over into the tree as well?
Yes, of course.
BTW, I got copies of everything again this morning that I moved in
Package: xbase
Version: 3.1.2-4
--- Start of forwarded message ---
From: Erick Branderhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: PATH in pre,post inst,rm
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Murdock)
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 95 12:30:59 MET
I suggested using PATH in post,pre rm,inst on the list a few da
Package: bash
Version: 1.14.4-2
A little complicated, perhaps, but he does have good suggestions.
--- Start of forwarded message ---
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 16:42:03 +0100
From: Dominik Kubla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: /etc/profile on Debian Linux
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTE
Package: syslogd
Version: 1.2-15
--- Start of forwarded message ---
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen R. van den Berg)
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 16:33:04 +0100
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: patch for Debian sysklogd package
diff -p -C 2 -r -d --horizon-lines=3 sysklogd-1.2/debian.README
sysk
--- Start of forwarded message ---
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 11:06:00 -0500
From: "brian (b.c.) white" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: New Packages-Master
I noticed that the "Packages-Master" file now has a "filename:" field.
I'm curious about what will happen when (if
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 1995 12:05:12 -0800
From: Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Let's put the ELF libraries in public view so that we can issue
packages that are only available in the ELF format.
What we need are new gcc and libc packages (and anything else) that
are ELF by default, rath
From: Erick Branderhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 95 16:14:06 MET
The Packages file in /debian/private/project/debian-1.0/binary/ is
wrong. The recently added field filename: ... in this file is
containing wrong information on the location of the file. It says:
debian
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 95 22:05 GMT
From: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bruce Perens writes ("Re: debian-1.0 "):
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > it might create problems for the mirrors.
>
> I think that while it is in its current state, 1.0 should not be where
> mirrors will fi
Should I physically copy everything from debian-0.93 to debian-1.0, or
should I use symbolic links when possible to save disk space? I know
it isn't a problem on ftp.debian.org, but it might create problems for
the mirrors.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Engel)
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 14:14:27 -0600 (CST)
Some people have suggested that the stuff in /lib be moved to
/lib/a.out or similar. This shouldn't be necessary as the ELF
stuff that goes in here should coexist.
Ah, yes. Of course. libc.so.4 and
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 95 13:16 GMT
From: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ian Murdock writes ("Re: Release management and package announcements"):
> Are we going to start with an a.out 1.0 and migrate to an ELF 1.0?
> If so, I'd agree that this is what we
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 95 01:04 GMT
From: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
If this is true then we need to copy the whole of the binary area from
0.93 to 1.0, so that 1.0 instantly becomes the `bleeding-edge'
distribution.
Are we going to start with an a.out 1.0 and migrate to an ELF 1.0
Package: sysvinit
Version: 2.57b-1
Until all of the bugs related to /etc/init.d scripts calling
/etc/init.d/functions are fixed, /etc/init.d/functions shouldn't
do anything (i.e., it should be an empty script). This will end
the problem with the arguments getting changed.
In addition, /etc/init.
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 95 10:33 MET
From: "Bernd S. Brentrup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>/usr/share is "certainly" a better place. The Bison parser
>skeletons are architechure-independent.
I apologize for bad wording (english isn't my native language),
what I meant to say is don't start c
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 1995 01:21:48 -0700
From: Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Rather than re-arrange the current released system, let's put the
new organization in place for the "current" and "1.0" system, and
leave debian-0.93 where it is now so we don't mess up the mirrors
again
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 95 20:45 GMT
From: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Since noone is maintaining these, and they *desperately* need
updating, I shall do it.
Who has the latest version and which format are they in ?
I started converting them to Texinfo some time ago, but I never had
I checked all the mirrors earlier this evening. I removed the ones
(at least for the moment) that are incomplete (i.e., not mirroring
all of the archive), incorrect, and outdated. You can find this in
/debian/README.mirrors.
Before you start displaying it from ftpd, I'll trim it down slightly.
A
Debian GNU/Linux 0.93 Release 6 is now available via anonymous FTP
from ftp.debian.org in the directory /debian. Release 6 is the first
official release of version 0.93, which has been under development
for over a year, and it is the first official release from the Debian
Project since January
Should I add anything (for example, about the mirror problems) to the
announcement? Here is what I have thus far. I want to send it in a
few hours, so please speak now or forever (or until the next release,
whichever comes first) hold your peace.
Debian GNU/Linux 0.93 Release 6 is now availa
The 0.93R6 installation diskettes have been moved in
/debian/debian-0.93/disks.
;, "Version:", and
"Description:"). It should be formatted something like this:
emacs (19.29-3)
GNU Emacs is the extensible self-documenting text editor.
Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Thu Oct 26 12:09:26 EST 1995
(I do agree that the date should be in RFC822 form
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
