On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 06:01:00PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> But who said mtools need to depend on floppyd package?
$ dpkg -L mtools | grep floppyd
/usr/bin/floppyd
/usr/bin/floppyd_installtest
/usr/share/man/man1/floppyd.1.gz
--
Raul
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 03:35:41PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > mtools, it's only one single file; a daemon (floppyd, if I'm not all
> > wrong) that needs xlib6g. It'd be simple to extract this daemon from
> > mtools and create an extra package with just this file, and make this file
> > recommen
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Dale Scheetz wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Guys, guys, guys... This is a discussion that was had quite a while ago,
> > and which lead to the creation of xlib6. The whole point was that it was
> > unnecessary glut to include a console
> *But* in this case, it seems hard to avoid. As I understand it, the
> *whole* mtools package makes 'parasitic' use of the X protocol
Point of information: only floppyd itself is linked against any X
library. The others, which *doing* clever things with xauth tokens
[according to the docs, I ha
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 06:08:48PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > Correction: mtools in slink does *not* depend on anything but libc6, so
> > there is still time to do it, cleanly.
> >
> > Maintainer, please do it.
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 12:28:08PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
...
> First, I belie
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 06:24:05PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > If something supports X it should be compiled with X. This means exactly
> > two packages (xlib6g and xfree86-common) are also required, but they're
>
> I beg to disagree. If the binary in question is not essantial for the
> pack
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Dale Scheetz wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Guys, guys, guys... This is a discussion that was had quite a while ago,
> > and which lead to the creation of xlib6. The whole point was that it was
> > unnecessary glut to include a consol
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Dale Scheetz wrote:
[snip]
> Guys, guys, guys... This is a discussion that was had quite a while ago,
> and which lead to the creation of xlib6. The whole point was that it was
> unnecessary glut to include a console version _and_ an X aware version of
> packages like emacs
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Brian Servis wrote:
> *- On 28 Sep, Josip Rodin wrote about "Re: mtools"
> > On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 07:13:58AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> >> > How comes mtools depend on xlib6g? I don't use X, and thus I consider it
> >> >
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 07:13:58AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > How comes mtools depend on xlib6g? I don't use X, and thus I consider it
floppyd is linked against xlib6g-
> If something supports X it should be compiled with X. This means exactly
> two packages (xlib6g and xfree86-common) are
severity 46184 wishlist
thanks
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 12:28:08PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> > Correction: mtools in slink does *not* depend on anything but libc6, so
> > there is still time to do it, cleanly.
> >
> > Maintainer, please do it.
>
> The bug tracking system has a weird X-Debian-
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 06:08:48PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Correction: mtools in slink does *not* depend on anything but libc6, so
> there is still time to do it, cleanly.
>
> Maintainer, please do it.
The bug tracking system has a weird X-Debian-CC system set up so you don't
create several b
Subject: mtools: please put X related stuff in another package
Package: mtools
Severity: normal
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 10:16:20AM -0500, Brian Servis wrote:
> >> > How comes mtools depend on xlib6g? I don't use X, and thus I consider it
> >> > very stupid to have both xlib6g & xfree86-common inst
*- On 28 Sep, Josip Rodin wrote about "Re: mtools"
> On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 07:13:58AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
>> > How comes mtools depend on xlib6g? I don't use X, and thus I consider it
>> > very stupid to have both xlib6g & xfree86-common instal
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 07:13:58AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > How comes mtools depend on xlib6g? I don't use X, and thus I consider it
> > very stupid to have both xlib6g & xfree86-common installed, but I have to
> > if I want mtools installed...
>
> If something supports X it should be compi
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 01:31:23PM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
> How comes mtools depend on xlib6g? I don't use X, and thus I consider it
> very stupid to have both xlib6g & xfree86-common installed, but I have to
> if I want mtools installed...
>
> Rationale?
If something supports X it should
16 matches
Mail list logo
