On Sun, 2003-12-14 at 22:16, Darren Salt wrote:
> I demand that Scott James Remnant may or may not have written...
>
> > On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 08:47, Herbert Xu wrote:
> >> Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> But your message didn't include a Content-Type header specifying that, so
> >
I demand that Scott James Remnant may or may not have written...
> On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 08:47, Herbert Xu wrote:
>> Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> But your message didn't include a Content-Type header specifying that, so
>>> it's likely to come through as garbage for most MUAs...
>>
Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Now, if my by-hand Unicode isn't rusty, I make this out to be
>
> U+FEFF ZERO WIDTH NO_BREAK SPACE
> U+8FAD CJK: words, speech, expression, phrase
> U+6D77 CJK: sea, ocean; maritime
That's correct.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! ( http://ww
On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 08:47, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > But your message didn't include a Content-Type header specifying that,
> > so it's likely to come through as garbage for most MUAs...
>
> Right, here it is again
>
> \xEF\xBB\xBF\xE8\xBE\xAD\xE6\xB
Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> But your message didn't include a Content-Type header specifying that,
> so it's likely to come through as garbage for most MUAs...
Right, here it is again
\xEF\xBB\xBF\xE8\xBE\xAD\xE6\xB5\xB7
--
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/
On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 18:31, Herbert Xu wrote:
> ?
>
> (that's UTF-8) as the reference.
But your message didn't include a Content-Type header specifying that,
so it's likely to come through as garbage for most MUAs...
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 10:31:11AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Do you have a dictionary that gives the historical derivation?
>
> I used
>
> ?
>
> (that's UTF-8) as the reference.
That seems to have got mangled into the nine question marks above
On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 10:31:11AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Well I certainly have no idea of the historical background of the word,
> > but my `guessed derivation' does actually sort of make sense in that
> > context...
[snip]
I read the archives t
Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well I certainly have no idea of the historical background of the word,
> but my `guessed derivation' does actually sort of make sense in that
> context...
The reason I think it's incorrect is that although `fu' means husband,
it is not used to mean part
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 09:55:07AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I guess that makes sense, if you interpret it as meaning something like
> > > `Hard work is the partner of success' -- which sort of works with `apt'
> > > too (partner of apt?).
> >
> > I d
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I guess that makes sense, if you interpret it as meaning something like
> > `Hard work is the partner of success' -- which sort of works with `apt'
> > too (partner of apt?).
>
> I don't think that derivation is correct. The `fu' really has no
> meaning
Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I guess that makes sense, if you interpret it as meaning something like
> `Hard work is the partner of success' -- which sort of works with `apt'
> too (partner of apt?).
I don't think that derivation is correct. The `fu' really has no
meaning in the or
On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 10:54, Miles Bader wrote:
> Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm afraid that although the character `fu' has many meanings, but
> > style or technique isn't one of them.
>
> Hmmm, you seem to be right, I was confused. :-(
>
> I don't have a chinese dictionary, but
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm afraid that although the character `fu' has many meanings, but
> style or technique isn't one of them.
Hmmm, you seem to be right, I was confused. :-(
I don't have a chinese dictionary, but my Japanese dictionary lists a
japanese version of kung-fu `ka
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > FWIW, the `fu' in kung-fu means something like style or technique, so
> > apt-fu sort of makes sense if you think of as a tool for doing cool
> > things using the power of apt... :-)
>
> I'm afraid that althoug
On Wednesday 10 December 2003 12:48, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > FWIW, the `fu' in kung-fu means something like style or technique, so
> > apt-fu sort of makes sense if you think of as a tool for doing cool
> > things using the power of apt... :-)
>
> I'm afraid t
Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> FWIW, the `fu' in kung-fu means something like style or technique, so
> apt-fu sort of makes sense if you think of as a tool for doing cool
> things using the power of apt... :-)
I'm afraid that although the character `fu' has many meanings, but
style or
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> p.s. why Apt-Fu ? Is that 'APT Kung-Fu' or what ? Hmm, after apt-src,
> apt-build, and similar 'build that debian source package' tools, I've been
> expecting for 'apt-too' ;-)
FWIW, the `fu' in kung-fu means something like style or technique, so
apt
On Tuesday 09 December 2003 12:20, Eric Wong wrote:
> Eric Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--cut--
> > OK, I'll do my best to have all the changes you requested done and
> > tested by tomorrow. Let me know if you have any other feature requests
> > and/or bug reports.
First of all, thank you ve
Eric Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 05:48:21PM -0800, Eric Wong wrote:
> > I have one feature request: I'd like to have an option so that I can ask
> > it to rebuild arch-indep packages just like it rebuilds other packages.
> >
20 matches
Mail list logo
