On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 12:28:55PM +1100, Evan Cox wrote:
> My suggestion has come from frustration in trying to maintain Debian Sarge
> from the CLI. I am very use to some sort of system control center, for
> common tasks such as iptables, network connection/configuration, configuring
> hardw
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 07:27:27PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Good lord, what are we arguing about then :-)
> > Do people who edit their exim config (I never do on my desktop)
> > really have a har
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 09:36:54PM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
> that is irrelevant to the user perspective, IMHO). They produce the
> same initial configuration in any case. The only difference from a user
Good lord, what are we arguing about then :-)
Do people who edit their exim config (I neve
On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 03:02:00AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Furthermore, how does a thing being "standard" help the user in his
> choice? The user only thinks of his own needs, thus a correct wording
> would be "pick A if you don't care". However the current wording is even
> better; the qu
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 04:11:16PM -0800, Blunt Jackson wrote:
> it through the web. Except, I suppose there is, I was just too dumb to
> find it. Gulp.
I had a similar experience when I reported bugs in Unstable on the list
and was roundly flamed for not reading bug reports.
apt-listchanges is
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 11:02:21AM -0800, Blunt Jackson wrote:
> and do utterly wacked out things to it. The upside *may* be having a
The exim4 config asks you if you want itty bitty or one monolothic
config file. It offers you the option of doing it the upstream way.
What's the problem?
--
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 07:44:53AM +0430, Robert Koeneke wrote:
>
> Ok, I am working on getting the correct GPL statement put together so this
> game on all the games based on it don't have any restrictions to
> distribution. It was never my intention to make it hard to share, just to
> make cert
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 12:09:42PM +0800, Dan Jacobson wrote:
> Now that maintainers realized that one might like a package installed,
> but perhaps only plans to use it unoften, it only makes sense for not
> starting at boot to be offered as a friendly configuration option,
> instead of needing so
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 11:24:29PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Avoid gnuplot if you can, the license is GPL-incompatible and not one we
> should encourage (See bug #100612 for why).
The bug was closed. It says the license problems were fixed.
In other words: Huh?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:26:31PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> It would also break serialisation, as one would need to give a list of
> packages to install to dpkg all at once or in the correct serialisation,
> and no longer (with exception of configure cycles) beeing able to give
> them in wh
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 01:38:28PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> Of course. No one has provided proof that this is the case, though. I
> asked if a versioned depends was necessary, but instead got accusations
> and vitriol. I have not had time to test it myself yet.
Some of the other *-source
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 08:37:04PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> Why not? It means that you just need to go fetch and install the
> dependency, you don't need to try and install the depending package
> again.
Yeah, that's real "elegant."
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 10:05:00AM -0600, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Recommends means "packages that would be found together with this one in all
> > but unusual installations". It is not unusual to have a single designated
> > build machine in an or
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 03:06:06PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> What William Ballard, Cameron Hutchinson and Eduard Bloch are asking for
> is to remove the difference between Depends and Pre-Depends and make all
> Depends behave like Pre-Depends.
No: I do not want dependenc
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:57:23PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> I think I'm of the "it's a low-level tool, you can shoot yourself in
> the foot if you insist on it" school.
Then the problem is source packages force you to use this low level too.
That's why I said I will never install a pack
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 04:23:19PM +1100, Vincent Ho wrote:
> entitled to be precise when saying that the files are not removed (as
> canvassed by Cameron), but overwritten. Please accept gracefully that
And *I'm* being precise when I said "foo 1.0" is removed and not
replaced. A package is not
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 12:27:11AM +0100, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:
> No, but it is for a -source package.
? Think about what you're saying. It's "anathema" to install it? Or
"anathema" to force you to install it? I checked and several of the the
*-source packages Suggest the utils; som
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 07:10:42PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> If you didn't want the package to be unpacked before its dependencies
> are installed, you'd just check the dependencies before unpacking.
Or use apt.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscr
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 08:16:47AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> The files are not removed.
They ain't there no more. You can't use them.
You can't use the new files either until you do the things you specify.
If, for some reason, you cannot do the things you specify
(because the things wh
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:07:52PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> in ways that were not backwards-compatible: automatically pulling in the
> -utils could render the system networkless before you've even started to
> *build* the modules...
In theory, yes if ndiswrapper-modules has a versioned depen
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 06:53:57AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 01:35 -0500, William Ballard wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 06:16:01AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > > dpkg doesn't remove foo-modules_1.0 at all.
> >
>
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 06:16:01AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> dpkg doesn't remove foo-modules_1.0 at all.
I used equivs to make a package "foo", version 1.0, and installed it.
I used equivs to make a package "foo", version 2.0, which depend on
"bar", which doesn't exist. Tried to instal
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 05:36:50PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> dpkg doesn't do this because this isn't how dpkg works -- people wrote a
> higher-level tool, apt, to do that. People ignoring error messages from
> their package manager, breaking their system's network interface, and
> blaming the
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:15:26AM +1100, Cameron Hutchison wrote:
> Is this the scenario being argued over?
Yes, that was exactly what I had in mind
>If so, why does dpkg not first
> check the dependencies of foo-modules_2.0 before removing
> foo-modules_1.0?
"Because it's a low-level tool inte
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 03:35:07PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Oh, but wait, the version of ndiswrapper-source in testing is packaged by
> the same maintainer, and it works just fine for me.
Did you try building it against kernel 2.6.10?
Old versionf of upstream debs build against new kernels;
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 12:16:00AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> If you use dpkg -i, sure you do. dpkg is a low-level tool; treating
> it as anything else will give surprising and annoying results.
Maybe authors of package-generating packages should point out that they
are only installable by
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 09:40:47PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
>
> How can a couple of variables (not two dozens that you would need to get
> from the headers, environment and some other sources) mean tight
> coupling? In which world are you living?
Meaning it breaks it isn't there.
You're confus
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 08:33:02PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> dpkg -I on the resulting package and looking at the depends?
But you don't expect to do that for other packages.
I have started to use temporary apt repositories instead of
dpkg -I which fixes my problem. And accepted that packag
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 07:59:59PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> WTF? IIRC there are studies about where low cooupling and high cohesion
> make sense and where not.
All he uses from your include files are a couple of variables.
That's low cohesion, tight coupling.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EM
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 06:14:05PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> What are other packages?!
The other packages which depend on module-assistant.
> the module-assistant package (about 40kB) but provides some comfort for
> users and comfort, code size reduction, extendability, automatic feature
> upg
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 05:21:53PM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> identify problems, both in upstream and packaged versions. Posting in
> d-d is at least inappropriate.
It's an open list.
The problem is the upstream has the goal of producing a package that
works and another guy is trying
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 10:15:06AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> "shove ... down everybody's throat"
> "You've F'd it up beyond all recognition"
I filed a bug nice and the guy closed it about 14 minutes later
immediately saying "there is no problem." The maintainer is dead-set on
following his ch
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 09:00:18AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> That's still no reason to rip the d-d.
I didn't rip it. I said I'm not griping -- just remarked on
the fact that the upstream is already Debianized and is not
broken.
I don't think the maintainer even uses ndiswrapper on his
system.
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 03:45:56AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> Gee, the latest ndiswrapper has a bug. Downgrade to the one in
> testing, or upgrade to the one I uploaded today. It's not the
> end of the world. Perhaps you could even be helpful and let me
> know whether rc2 hangs in the same w
All:
Some of you have probably seen my gripes about ndiswrapper-source.
I moved on past all that -- but upstream is debianizing it and
it's better in many ways.
The alternate location is:
http://ndiswrapper.sourceforge.net/debian/
It contains:
ndiswrapper-source_0.12-1_i386.deb
dated 25-Nov-2004.
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 04:52:40PM +0100, Miguel Gea Milvaques wrote:
> Hello,
> I don't undestand why software loading files (as we are talking) must be
> in contrib. An example: xpdf, if you have not a pdf file you could not
> use it, only it gave us a blank page. You could read a lot of differen
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 08:22:47PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> We don't have to go from X.0 to (X+1).0 in 6 months. It's perfectly ok
> to go from X.0 to X.1.
.1 Releases aren't for adding functionality which was created after
the .0 release. It's for finishing the stuff you postponed
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 01:20:02AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> So, you're about 1/4 right. Or, being charitable, if you really meant
> "*only* the Consistency part of ACID" when you said "ACID consistency",
> then you were right but quite misleading.
I know what it means, you're being pedagog
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 12:29:20PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> I don't know. That was the impression I got from the OP's rantings.
> It seemed that the old package worked without the -utils, but the
> new package didn't. So when the new package was unpacked (but
> couldn't be configured), it bro
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 07:13:02PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote:
> Fine then, don't use it. It'll pull the deps before it install the
> modules and unloads them and re-loads them.
I just didn't realize this crap was so brittle.
So many ways to fix brokenness when I just don't know why dpkg even
bot
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 07:12:02PM -0500, Roberto Sanchez wrote:
> You drop a .deb file in there, run apt-update-repository to regenerate
> the Packages file, and then the package is now apt-getable.
That's what I'm going to do, plus I'm going to start treating dpkg
like a red-headed stepchild. :-
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 06:55:47PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote:
> (c) Download and install it for you.
You're right, but there's still one problem:
It breaks first and *then* fixes it.
By the time it's broken, your old network card no longer
works and you can't connect to an apt repository to fix it
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 12:32:50AM +0100, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:
> No, you should use module-assistant tool, which is a high level tool
If I have installed module-assistant and ndiswrapper-source and have
not installed ndiswrapper-utils and install ndiswrapper-modules
the modules-assistan
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 12:30:10AM +0100, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:
> including insulting you when you type stupid commands. But you don't
> have the right to insult people because you are pissed for not being
> clever enough of looking for dependencies before installing a package by
> hand us
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 11:27:59PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> >From my point of view, those source packages are most often installed by
> a dependency of some other *utilities* package. Once they are installed,
So, what you're saying is, if I need some module foo source, I should
look to be ins
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 11:37:52PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Given that -source packages do not adequately specify the dependencies
> > to be able to use the output, one must NEVER run "dpkg -i&quo
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 11:28:55PM +0100, Sebastian Ley wrote:
> Btw: Leaving old packages build from -source packages around would quite well
> do the trick. But I suppose W.B. wants to call more people assholes before
> invoking brain functions...
Right: I have to do all this special stuff to
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 11:22:47PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Sorry, but a package can't install a brain.
> It builds a new package, so you look at that one before you do
> anything. Where is the problem?
Why even bother having the concept of dependencies in the first
place? Why not just look
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 04:18:36PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> Again, reading the report, I see you getting more and more frustrated,
> and then resorting to name calling, and dirt throwing(publically, on
> this list). Both are signs of poor ettiquette.
I offered the asshole and alternative and he
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 11:19:35PM +0100, Sebastian Ley wrote:
> * William Ballard wrote:
>
> [...crap...]
>
> Do you need the -utils apckage to build the -source package? No. So no
> Depends
> and no Recommends for you. Period. Depends and Recommends have a certain
W
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 04:18:36PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> Again, reading the report, I see you getting more and more frustrated,
> and then resorting to name calling, and dirt throwing(publically, on
> this list). Both are signs of poor ettiquette.
I offered the asshole and alternative and he
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 11:10:16PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2005-01-06 16:58:56, schrieb William Ballard:
>
> > Given that -source packages do not adequately specify the dependencies
> > to be able to use the output, one must NEVER run "dpkg -i" a given de
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 04:02:17PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, William Ballard wrote:
> Er, huh? I don't see what problem you are describing.
>
> What *exactly* is the issue you have?
Packages that generate packages as output that have
dependencies the orig
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 04:05:24PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> I've now taken time to read the bug report. You're wrong, and the maintainer
> is right.
Well that's why you simply cannot trust that source packages
will not completely fuck up your system.
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 11:02:40PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 04:58:56PM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
> > Apparently the dickhead maintainer of ndiswrapper-source has just gone
> > into his shell and refuses to discuss this problem.
>
> Eh
me-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 04:02:17PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, William Ballard wrote:
> Er, huh? I don't s
Apparently the dickhead maintainer of ndiswrapper-source has just gone
into his shell and refuses to discuss this problem.
Since his package (and theoretically any package which generates
packages) may be uninstallable because there is no way to say "give me
the source and everything I need to
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 12:47:14PM -0800, Will Lowe wrote:
> > mozilla-browser is 30 megabytes and duplicates the vast majority of
> > firefox
>
> Is 30M of disk space really that precious these days? I can't imagine
> trying to run software that uses GTKMozEmbed on an embedded device
> where sp
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 11:25:29PM +, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> We've spent most of the past year thinking a release might be just round
> the corner. We can only cry wolf so many times before the world stops
> believing us and finds an option that actually works.
I started using Linux (and D
On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 12:08:03PM -0500, Eric Dorland wrote:
> * William Ballard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 08:44:05AM +0100, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> > > mozilla-dev depends on mozilla-browser, but not mozilla.
> >
> > mozil
On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 11:33:21AM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote:
> Right. Do you regard this as a problem?
It would be a lot smarter to check if the install would succeed
before unpacking it. If you were replacing a previous alsa-modules
package, the old one will be uninstalled and non-functional (
On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 08:44:05AM +0100, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> mozilla-dev depends on mozilla-browser, but not mozilla.
mozilla-browser is 30 megabytes and duplicates the vast majority of
firefox
as my link suggest apparently there exists an rpm for
gtkmozembed-firefox so somebody else a
On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 08:40:32PM -0500, Roberto Sanchez wrote:
> William Ballard wrote:
> >All the required .so files are in /x/b/moz/cur.
> Why no set LD_LIBRARY_PATH for programs that you want to let
> find the libraries?
Yeah, I figured that out. I suppose that's enough
On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 09:55:42PM -0500, Eric Dorland wrote:
> And what would the advantage be over using mozilla? The gecko engine
> is the same, in fact mozilla tends to have a newer gecko engine than
> firefox. I mean this could be done, but if it doesn't actually confer
> any advantages why bo
I build Firefox from source and just `cp -rL dist/bin` to some
directory, and just run 'firefox' from there. I like having the rest
of the system unware of Firefox's existence unless I explicitly wire it
up.
But now I want to mess around with GtkMozEmbed, so I have to register
some of the shar
gtkmozembed.h is packaged in mozilla-dev
mozilla-dev depends on mozilla-browser
Apparently it is possible to use FireFox instead and RPM for
"firefox-gtkmozembed" exit:
http://lists.freshrpms.net/pipermail/freshrpms-list/2004-October/011326.html
Will Debian package such?
Kernel module source packages generated Debian packages which may not be
installable. For instance, alsa-source does not depend on alsa-base,
but the generated alsa-modules does. ndiswrapper-source does the same
with ndiswrapper-utils.
Is there a flag to dpkg to refuse to install unless depen
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 06:33:31PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> You must have had horrible experiences with your computer. I am
> sorry.
Not at all. I've just never been a fan of having a thousand
windows open. I keep 4 terminals tiled on 1 desktop, use screen
to background things, and use a
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 06:10:08PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> Damn, and I run about 60 applications simultaneously and never lose
> overview with fluxbox or ion. I must be doing something wrong.
This seems to me to be a sloppy way to work. If all these apps are
doing significant amounts of w
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 12:40:29PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
> There's only one preconceived notion: that we need a single set of
> binaries, because that's what ISVs and IHVs require for the result to be
> viable. The LCC doesn't mandate the use of RPM (only to the extent the
What makes you think
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 10:17:29PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Would you please stop asserting that I'm out to FUD you? Given my
> history I would hope that you could take for granted that I want what's
> best for the project.
I love how Debian has no sacred cows. It's one of the reasons I
stu
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 12:38:36AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Warning: the 100 French Francs banknote displays the 'Liberty Leading
> the People' by Eugène Delacroix which picture the Liberty as a
> bare-breasted woman.
This passes the "soley designed to appeal to the prurient interest" te
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 06:28:14PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> might want, and put it on non-us since it is illegal to distribute such
> things in the USA (and unlike the possibility of offending people's
> sensibilities, THIS is a real issue as things stand). While at it, we
They
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 12:12:53PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 07:29:53PM -0500, William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 04:28:11PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Because he's an idiot. Can
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 07:49:17PM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
>bible-kjv beats procmeter3, xmms-jack, and openuniverse.
> It's #4735 out of 17953 in popcon.
It's #3562 out of people who use it regularly.
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 05:40:14PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> This is obscure specialty stuff.
bible-kjv beats procmeter3, xmms-jack, and openuniverse.
It's #4735 out of 17953 in popcon.
It also beats xevil.
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 04:28:11PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Because he's an idiot. Can we move on to something on-topic?
Fuck you.
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 06:09:14PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Why? Why should one not be true and the others false? Why
> can't there really be one true religion?
So your problem with the Bible is Jesus is a fake magical being because
Krishna is the only real magical being.
The evid
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 04:33:15PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> William Ballard writes:
> > The Bible should be in Debian. But the Koran, the Torah, and the Vishnu
> > texts (name escapes me at the moment) should all be in there too.
>
> Debian is not Project Gutenb
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 04:22:29PM -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> Except Debian contains no Vaishnava texts nor is anyone trying to
> introduce them.
Of course Manoj complained about the Bible in Debian, but he specically
used the phrase "false gods", at which point I felt it necessary to
say th
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 12:57:42PM -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> > Krishna is Jesus, dumbass.
> No He isn't. dumbass.
http://www.krishna.com/newsite/main.php?id=324
quote:
Trying to prove that Krishna is God presents a similar challenge.
Someone might ask, "If Krishna is God, why doesn't He com
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 03:08:20AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> people. fortunes-off likewise. And the bible is insulting, with its
> presumption of godliness of false gods, is offensive to anyone not of
> the judea-christian-islamic bent of mind.
Krishna is Jesus, dumbass.
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 04:15:44PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> Killing targetted innocent civilians to promote a political cause is quite
> popular on all sides however.
What was the political target of killing the woman who'd lived in Iraq
for 30 years and screamed the loudest for the sanctio
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 01:25:36AM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> The Christian Bible ought to be OK by most Islamic scholars - it's the
> Crusader history that has caused most of the problems - but you
After 9/11 I saw a fellow named Tariq Ramadan on C-Span, and one of his
books was the histo
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 09:25:45PM -0400, sean finney wrote:
> i know this has been beaten to death, i really do. but i can't help it...
>
> On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 01:24:00AM +0100, Gürkan Sengün wrote:
> > Description : cdplayer.app -- Small audio CD player for GNUstep
>
> then why not g
85 matches
Mail list logo
