Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2003 08:24:38 +0200, Marcelo E Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> My point is that given the way the question is written, its
>> priority and default answer seem to counter its purpose.
[...]
>Given that were the defaults set diffe
On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 02:12:55AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Given that were the defaults set differently this would be a
> serious bug, perhaps that says something about the purpose.
Come again?
Marcelo
On Wed, 4 Jun 2003 08:24:38 +0200, Marcelo E Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 01:01:18AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> It is an either or situation -- give us your configuration files,
>> or forever lose out on any configuration change the maintainers do,
>> even t
On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 01:01:18AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> It is an either or situation -- give us your configuration
> files, or forever lose out on any configuration change the
> maintainers do, even though that shall break your packages.
Sure, I wasn't claiming it's perfec
On Sun, 1 Jun 2003 17:18:03 +0200, Marcelo E Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> So the gist of that text is: "debian packages can manage the
> configuration file by themselves, it's a good idea if they do and
> there's a chance something will break unless you really really know
> what you a
5 matches
Mail list logo
