> "Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joey> Yes, you're right. What's happening is that debconf will not
Joey> re-ask a question unless you specifically tell it to do
Joey> so. This is generally a good thing, in this case it is
Joey> obviously not right. libglide2 c
On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 02:47:55AM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Jan 2001, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > You know, kinda like the way I went nuclear on Wichert when he broke
> > vim.
>
> Just use abiword, who's maintainer never updates it(hi gecko).
>
In gecko's defense, he has upd
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > dh_suidregister to have a versioned conflicts, but I guess that's my
> > problem, not your problem. :-)
>
> Automatic adding of a versioned conflict.. I'm suddenly extra glad none
> of my packages use debhelper.
I think debhelper should just check for the versioned con
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Joey Hess wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~>dpkg -p dpkg |grep Depends
> Pre-Depends: libc6 (>= 2.1.97), libncurses5, libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2
Perl is a required package, there is no need to list the dependency.
BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL++
On Wed, 03 Jan 2001, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I'd sooner killfile you than respect a lame Mail-Followup-To like this:
So you
o expect people to honor your Mail-Followup-To header, yet
o ignore mine on purpose.
Yes, please killfile me so I don't have to deal with your replies.
> The problem
Tim Bell wrote:
>
> Now I'm sure Ben is plenty busy with libc6 and whatever else he does,
> and I don't mean to blame him for this slipping through. But the
> thought that bugs are getting closed without being fixed is worrying.
That's my point. A package like libc6 is burdensome. It would not b
Greetings,
Does anyone know where Loic has been lately (i.e., for the past two years
or so)? AFAIK his last package upload was in November 1998, and the mail
I sent him about whether he needs help with mailx has generated no reply.
Since mailx is important, if the maintainer is indeed MIA, somebo
Brian May wrote:
> > "Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Joey> Yes, you're right. What's happening is that debconf will not
> Joey> re-ask a question unless you specifically tell it to do
> Joey> so. This is generally a good thing, in this case it is
> Joey> obv
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 04:56:38PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> > FYI 28 (aka RFC 1855) is the standard.
> >
> > There is nothing about honoring X headers at all.
>
> I didn't say there was. Does "Mail-Copies-To:" begin with an X?
RFC 822 this time:
REPORT shows as of now, stamped 03-Jan-2001 14:58, the following:
1.
dpkg_1.8.0_i386.changes
BYHAND
dpkg-1.8.0.tar.gz byhand
dpkg_1.8.0_i386.deb
to pool/main/d/dpkg/dpkg_1.8.0_i386.deb
The above says to me I should be able to find that file at that
location. However, a search of ftp.debian.org,
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Gordon Sadler wrote:
> REPORT shows as of now, stamped 03-Jan-2001 14:58, the following:
>
> 1.
> dpkg_1.8.0_i386.changes
> BYHAND
> dpkg-1.8.0.tar.gz byhand
> dpkg_1.8.0_i386.deb
> to pool/main/d/dpkg/dpkg_1.8.0_i386.deb
> [snip]
> gcc-2.97_2.97-001230_i386.changes
> NEW to
On Thursday 04 January 2001 14:54, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> Tim Bell wrote:
> > Now I'm sure Ben is plenty busy with libc6 and whatever else he does,
> > and I don't mean to blame him for this slipping through. But the
> > thought that bugs are getting closed without being fixed is worrying.
>
Thanks for the info, I actually think I understand that file now much
better. I was not reading all the way through and made some incorrect
conclusions from my incomplete understanding.
Gordon Sadler
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 11:08:00PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Gordon Sadler w
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 11:26:25AM -0800, Philip Brown wrote:
> [ D-Man writes ]
> > Try mutt and its "L" command. The "L" command means "list-reply", aka
> > only send a message to the list, not to all recepients. It also sets
> > a header flag so that other well-behaved MUA's don't send you an
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 02:26:33PM -0500, Adam McKenna wrote:
> Not exactly. List-reply sends a reply to the list and any other people
> listed in Mail-Followup-To. The thing that bugs me about this is that mutt
> often adds other list-readers' e-mail addresses to Mail-Followup-To,
> effectivel
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 08:36:54PM -0900, Ethan Benson wrote:
> > listed in Mail-Followup-To. The thing that bugs me about this is that mutt
> > often adds other list-readers' e-mail addresses to Mail-Followup-To,
> > effectively rendering this feature useless.
>
> try reading the FM. in mutt 1
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 09:53:04PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> > > In fact, the only thing the RFC says to do is to honor Reply-To: headers,
> > > which I might note you didn't include in your message.
> >
> > Why should I, when it would be no different from my From: header?
>
> It would be in your
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> but actually I'm going
> to do a new set tonight. (I'm working on it as we speak.)
>
Make that tomorrow. I think I can solve another of the outstanding
problems but I'm too tired to do it now.
--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
101 - 118 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
