On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Steve Lamb wrote:
> No, I never said their status was unjust. I said the process appears
> broken. Two completely different statements. I cannot think of any
> conceivable justification for ANY application to be present for years. That
> has nothing to do with just or u
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 10:38:41AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 12:56:20 -0400
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And neither does the fact that some have been there for years indicate
> > anything in particular.
>
> Actually, I think it does. They should either
* Steve Lamb [Wed, 6 Aug 2003 at 10:19 -0700]
> > New mutt users might be slightly confused by the mutt way of doing
> > things but that doesn't mean we have to patch mutt for their sakes.
> > Naturally, it's up to the package maintainer how to differ from
> > upstream, but this mutt user would be
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:26:12AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 03:32:59PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > I don't take kindly to software installing other software without a
> > clear need and there simply was no clear need.
> Well, now, why don'tcha run 'em outta town, Te
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 13:09:15 -0500 (CDT)
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > Actually, I think it does. They should either be accepted or rejected
> > within x days. x being somewhere below rand(20) * 365. Either they are
> > in, rejected, or the
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 10:27:38AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 18:50:21 +0200
> Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Steve Lamb
> > | How many local users are you going to have on a laptop whose correct
> > SMTP| server changes as a function of their location?
>
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 08:01:35PM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 05:10:24PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > Interessting analysis. Many things that hold up the release can only be
> > solved by active and experienced maintainers since the packages are often
> > es
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 13:11:47 -0500 (CDT)
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No, I never said their status was unjust. I said the process appears
> > broken. Two completely different statements. I cannot think of any
> > conceivable justification for ANY application to be present for ye
On Wednesday 06 August 2003 20:01, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 05:10:24PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > Interessting analysis. Many things that hold up the release can only be
> > solved by active and experienced maintainers since the packages are often
> > essential
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 12:13:41 -0600
Hans Fugal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It would alter the way my mail is sent.
Are you sure? I see nothing in the patch that would require the use of
SMTP. The verbage always says "allow". I do not see the code for using the
local MTA removed at all.
--
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Chris Cheney wrote:
Not to toot my own horn, but I was accepted in under one week. I took 2 weeks
to read up on everything, then after I sent in my app, less than a week later
I was accepted.
The shortness can probably be attributed to me actually doing work. This was
during
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 08:01:35PM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 05:10:24PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > Interessting analysis. Many things that hold up the release can only be
> > solved by active and experienced maintainers since the packages are often
> > es
Yo!
Em Tue, 5 Aug 2003 20:13:44 -0500, Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu:
> I completely agree with you... I was arguing with a friend of mine, a
> Ximian developer. He insisted me that they were bringing Unix to the
> desktop of people, just like what Apple did. I insst that is *not* what
Chris Cheney wrote:
> The only people
> actually waiting that long now (aiui) are people James does not want in
> the project at all.
Then why are they left hanging indefinitely rather than being rejected?
> Also, it seems like most DD's don't maintain many packages anyway. Yes
> there are other
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 12:14:04PM +1000, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> Debians greatest strength is in its community, that includes dd's and
> non dd's.
>
> If we are organised in such a way that we are alienating non dd's the we
> are operating in a diminished state.
>
> Debian is but a shadow of what
Steve Lamb wrote:
> Actually, I think it does. They should either be accepted or rejected
> within x days. x being somewhere below rand(20) * 365. Either they are in,
> rejected, or the application closed because of a lack of interest on the
> developer's part.
If it's the same rand function
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:31:35AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Erm, no, read my message again. The fact that there are people in the
> queue that long, regardless of reason, is an indication that something is
> wrong. If the people are there because the DAM doesn't have the cajones to
> say
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:08:06AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Now, play the old kid's game. "One of these is not like the other, one of
> these does not belong..." The one that doesn't belong is the one that
> installs a version of software *other* than what was requested. The one that
> doe
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 08:04:00AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 09:27:10 -0500
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And is a much better choice than expecting every user to locally
> > configure smtp settings in the MUA. Lack of direct-SMTP support in mutt
> > is a good
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 06:04:33PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> I see how it could be construed as a conflict of interest[1], but it's
> not like the process doesn't have plenty of means to prevent that.
Ian Jackson could also see how it could :)
Debian Constitution 2.2.2:
2. A person may hol
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 01:40:41AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Admittedly, I've seen some less than useful messages on boot (mostly
> overly generic messages where I couldn't figure out what part of
> the system could possibly be producing them). Still, most of the
> messages are really pr
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 01:32:20PM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 08:01:35PM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
> > Someone should point NMs to difficulty of entering the development
> > mainstream of FreeBSD or becoming maintainer for the kernel...
> > IMO it's generall
Matt Zimmerman said:
>On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:56:59AM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
>
>> I know of several DDs and non-DDs thinking about creating a Debian2 (or
>> whatever named) project due to this and other lack of responce
>> problems and the group is growing. The danger is already there an
Peter Makholm said:
>Organizing a project from scratch can turn out to be the only way
>change bureaucracy and infrastructure that may make the goal harder to
>reach.
True. But it's a lot of effort, and it it's *NOT* the only way, we
would therefore prefer to try the other way first!
--
Nathan
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 01:41:45PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Chris Cheney wrote:
>
> Not to toot my own horn, but I was accepted in under one week. I took 2 weeks
> to read up on everything, then after I sent in my app, less than a week later
> I was accepted.
>
> The shortn
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 14:00:38 -0500
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry, that's the admin's job to configure. If the user and the
> admin are one and the same, why does it matter if the configuration is
> done in a local or a global config file? (sudo dpkg-reconfigure ...)
> And if th
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:50:36 +0100
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> About the same as finding a sponsor, then, with about the same ease of
> maintenance afterwards (i.e. you still have to run your changes past
> someone, not upload them directly).
Except when your sponsor goes AWOL for
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>And neither does the fact that some have been there for years indicate
>anything in particular.
Here is where you're entirely and totally wrong. It indicates a
breakdown in the communication process.
If these people are being delayed for a reason, the reason needs to be
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:29:30 +0100
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thus, while the situation isn't optimal, I can't see a better way.
Thank you. In the past 3 days you're the first person to actually explain
why things are contrary to how every other package is instead of trying to
b
I demand that Emile van Bergen may or may not have written...
[snip]
> I would not consider anything that contains a SMTP client an MTA.
You realise that by that definition, exim isn't an MTA :-)
> A proxy that handles port 25 is no MTA either. Such strict definitions
> ('talks SMTP') are genera
I demand that Eduard Bloch may or may not have written...
[snip]
> PS: a hot day or what?
If you call 20°C hot, then yes, it has been a hot day ;-)
--
| Darren Salt | nr. Ashington, | linux (or ds) at
| woody, sarge, | Northumberland | youmustbejoking
| RISC OS | Toon Army | demon
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Chris Cheney wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 01:41:45PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Chris Cheney wrote:
> >
> > Not to toot my own horn, but I was accepted in under one week. I took 2
> > weeks
> > to read up on everything, then after I sent in my app, l
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:29:30 +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
[...]
> However, gcc-2.95 needs to install /usr/bin/gcc or it isn't much use.
Actually...
What exactly does gcc-2.95 need it for?
/usr/bin/gcc is a straight link to gcc-3.3 after all.
--
Michał Politowski -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Warning: this
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 08:39:52PM +0200, Oliver Bausinger wrote:
Content-Description: signed data
> On Wednesday 06 August 2003 20:01, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 05:10:24PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > > Interessting analysis. Many things that hold up the releas
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 01:41:45PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> pps: If you are expecting delays, don't get frustrated. Continue to do work.
> Do more work. Proof to everyone that you can be a valuable member to the
> project. If you get delayed, and then go and stomp off, pout, and say I quit,
>
Hi, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 11:26:12 -0500
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> (IMO, the kernel ignoring $(CC) is the kernel's problem.)
>
> One problem doesn't excuse the other.
So how can we get it into your head that the other is _not_ a problem?
You asked for
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 21:34:26 +0200
Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So how can we get it into your head that the other is _not_ a problem?
By explaining why gcc 3.3 is needed for gcc 2.95 to work in the first
place! Is that too much to ask? Apparently! Lemme put it this way: In
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:16:12PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >And neither does the fact that some have been there for years indicate
> >anything in particular.
>
> Here is where you're entirely and totally wrong. It indicates a
> breakdown in the communication pro
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 09:40:03PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > I see how it could be construed as a conflict of interest[1], but it's
> > not like the process doesn't have plenty of means to prevent that.
>
> Ian Jackson could also see how it could :)
>
> Debian Constitution 2.2.2: "the Le
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:58:22AM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
> > > I have an RC bug which is 156 days (or so) old, which is waiting for
> > > upstream to rewrite the program.
>
> When you have maintain a package, shouldn't you be able to fix
> it yourself?
He said rewrite.
--
2. That which
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 01:06:03PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 21:34:26 +0200
> Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So how can we get it into your head that the other is _not_ a problem?
>
> By explaining why gcc 3.3 is needed for gcc 2.95 to work in the first
>
On Wednesday 06 August 2003 18:42, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
> Your conclusion that long DAM wait times leads to slow releases has
> little or no basis in fact. You do not need to have completed the NM
> process to contribute to Debian. In fact, I believe the whole DAM
> process would be more eff
* Darren Salt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I demand that Eduard Bloch may or may not have written...
>
> [snip]
> > PS: a hot day or what?
>
> If you call 20°C hot, then yes, it has been a hot day ;-)
Here in germany were up to 39 °C today.
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 16:22:51 -0400
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, it is too much to ask, because it is impossible to explain the reason
> for something which isn't so. gcc 2.95 doesn't require gcc 3.3, it just
> requires some version of the 'gcc' package with a version number >=
>
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 06:04:33PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Himself, for example? He already does work on that front, he's
> certainly a trusted developer judging by the vote results (and
> there's no such record for any other officers, mind you), and in fact
> he said he helped James add s
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 10:41:37PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> the person who's in charge of the keyring has to be as paranoid as James.
> The other person in the project that comes to mind is Manoj. And that's
> it. I wouldn't trust Martin with such a responsability, and I don't care
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 01:40:53PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 16:22:51 -0400
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > gcc-2.95 (2.95.3.ds3-5) testing unstable; urgency=low
>
> > * For each binary compiler package xxx-2.95 add a dependency on
> > xxx (>= 1:2.95.3-2
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> You asked for gcc-2.95. You got gcc-2.95. Whatever else you got should be
> of no consequence whatsoever.
It's this kind of attitude that drives people to gentoo.
--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/deb
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 12:32:19PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > About the same as finding a sponsor, then, with about the same ease of
> > maintenance afterwards (i.e. you still have to run your changes past
> > someone, not upload them directly).
> E
unsubscribe
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Uh, no. I see no reason why gcc-2.95 must depend on a package which does
> nothing more than install a symlink called gcc which, in turn, depends on
> gcc-3.3 forcing 3.3 to be installed. Furthermore it is insane that a person
> could apt-get install g
On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 14:32, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Except when your sponsor goes AWOL for 3 weeks after giving them the URL
> to download the packages to paw through and upload.
This is not different than someone in your path-to-Linus being AWOL. It
happens.
It's a problem, but it's a problem e
Michael Piefel dijo [Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 01:34:49PM +0200]:
> > Neither tab-completion or globbing is available when I'm editing a file
> > and have to write those path names.
>
> In Vim insert mode, press ^X^F for completion, ^N/^P to choose among
> many. Also, in GTK+, file selector boxes allow
On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 09:27, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 06:51:12PM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 09:35:29AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > > IMHO using any local mailer is a bad idea on a desktop system. You send
> > > off the mail, your MUA says "Sent
On 06 Aug 2003 16:27:24 -0500
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's a problem, but it's a problem every large project and many small
> ones have, not just Debian. Claiming that Debian is dying because of it
> is absurd.
I never claimed Debian is dying and if I were it would be for a
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 17:06:53 -0400
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You haven't listened.
You've not said anything worth listening to.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 08:31:23PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> It runs deeper than that. If you aren't sufficiently interested to do
> the work for its own sake, why the hell are you trying to join Debian
> in the first place?
Because you think it's an awesome group with laudable goals and you
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 16:26:06 -0500 (CDT)
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Have you ever heard of alternatives? If 2 packages are installed, both
> providing the same alternative, it's up to you to decide which is used.
Yes, I have. I've used it quite a bit.
> I'm not saying that /usr/
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 02:39:42PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 17:06:53 -0400
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You haven't listened.
>
> You've not said anything worth listening to.
*plonk*
--
- mdz
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 17:06:53 -0400
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You haven't listened.
> You've not said anything worth listening to.
I'v got popcorn. Who's got the beer?
On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 15:48, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>
> > You asked for gcc-2.95. You got gcc-2.95. Whatever else you got should be
> > of no consequence whatsoever.
>
> It's this kind of attitude that drives people to gentoo.
Let them go. IMO it's f
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:48:12PM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>
> > You asked for gcc-2.95. You got gcc-2.95. Whatever else you got should be
> > of no consequence whatsoever.
>
> It's this kind of attitude that drives people to gentoo.
I certain
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030806 16:20]:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:56:34PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> > But splitting the entire project is a freedom I would hate to see
> > exercised. In my opinion, things that threaten a project split to
> > happen should be avoided before the spli
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 17:45:44 -0400
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 02:39:42PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 17:06:53 -0400
> > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > You haven't listened.
> > You've not said anything worth listening
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030806 16:20]:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:33:38PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030806 14:50]:
> > > Why is this a danger? This is one of the freedoms provided by free
> > > software, which we work hard to promote.
>
On 06 Aug 2003 16:48:18 -0500
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let them go. IMO it's far better to install more than is necessary, but
> always get the desired functionality, than install less than is desired,
> and then have to spend 20 hours recompiling for the necessary
> functionality
Joe Wreschnig said on Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:39:10PM -0500:
> > And is a much better choice than expecting every user to locally
> > configure smtp settings in the MUA. Lack of direct-SMTP support in mutt
> > is a good thing.
>
> SSMTP is not acceptable for those of us that use SMTP AUTH+TLS, un
* Josip Rodin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030806 18:35]:
> Heh :) If I hadn't responded to it manually, it would have gotten ignored
> as spam (nobody cared enough to write a nice formail -r message because it
> happens rarely enough and the spambounces would waste us more resources).
> [policy of d-d-a]
* Noah L. Meyerhans ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030806 19:20]:
> In fact, I believe the whole DAM
> process would be more effective if we *required* that you made
> non-trivial contributions to Debian *before* the DAM would create an
> account for you.
I second. At cleaning up wnpp I saw more than once m
Steve Lamb writes:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 16:22:51 -0400
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A more useful question would be, why does gcc-2.95 depend on gcc? The
> > answer, as usual, you could have found for yourself in the changelog:
>
> > gcc-2.95 (2.95.3.ds3-5) testing unstable; u
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:58:22AM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
> IMHO, people should not package or take over a package that they
> do not understand how it works. For example, a kernel maintainer
[...]
> People should maintain packages they are qualified to maintain
Well, I see you're taking your ow
On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 17:09, Mark Ferlatte wrote:
> ssmtp in unstable supports TLS and certificate based AUTH (so you can
> authenticate on a per machine basis for relay). It appears to have AUTH
> CRAM-MD5 support, but it's unclear if that's distributable (according to
> comments in the source).
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:28:24PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> ... So vim is just vi becoming Emacs? I know the hard-core vi guys
> just hated Ctrl-combinations.
Straight from the VIM help system, you too can map the key to
useful, magical completion...
" Clever Tab from VIM Help
function!
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A more useful question would be, why does gcc-2.95 depend on gcc? The
> answer, as usual, you could have found for yourself in the changelog:
>
> gcc-2.95 (2.95.3.ds3-5) testing unstable; urgency=low
>
> * For each binary compiler package xxx-2.95 ad
On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 17:01, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On 06 Aug 2003 16:48:18 -0500
> Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Let them go. IMO it's far better to install more than is necessary, but
> > always get the desired functionality, than install less than is desired,
> > and then have to spe
Joe Wreschnig said on Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 05:43:49PM -0500:
> Interesting. I'm running unstable, but I can't find instructions on
> enabling TLS anywhere (nor does SSMTP seem to link to any TLS
> libraries). I see mention of it in the README (specifically, only a
> credit for it), but not the manu
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 08:41:20AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:56:59AM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
>
> > I know of several DDs and non-DDs thinking about creating a Debian2
> > (or whatever named) project due to this and other lack of responce
> > problems and the
On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 18:04, Mark Ferlatte wrote:
> I'm not sure why ssmtp has TLS disabled by default; perhaps a bug should be
> filed? It seems like it would provide all of the needed outgoing MTA
> functionality without requiring a daemon.
Looking at the SSMTP bug page, the package seems to be
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:09:15PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:16:12PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > >And neither does the fact that some have been there for years
> > >indicate anything in particular.
> >
> > Here is where you're entire
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 09:38:48PM +0200, Micha? Politowski wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:29:30 +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > However, gcc-2.95 needs to install /usr/bin/gcc or it isn't much use.
>
> Actually...
> What exactly does gcc-2.95 need it for?
> /usr/bin/gcc is a straight link to gcc-
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 01:40:53PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 16:22:51 -0400
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > gcc-2.95 (2.95.3.ds3-5) testing unstable; urgency=low
>
> > * For each binary compiler package xxx-2.95 add a dependency on
> > xxx (>= 1:2.95.3-2)
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 08:25:25PM +0100, Darren Salt wrote:
> I demand that Eduard Bloch may or may not have written...
> > PS: a hot day or what?
>
> If you call 20?C hot, then yes, it has been a hot day ;-)
God, is that all? I've been sweating in 33C in a supposedly
air-conditioned office. *si
Joe Wreschnig said on Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 06:32:14PM -0500:
> On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 18:04, Mark Ferlatte wrote:
> > I'm not sure why ssmtp has TLS disabled by default; perhaps a bug should be
> > filed? It seems like it would provide all of the needed outgoing MTA
> > functionality without requir
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 08:18:00AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:58:22AM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
> > Sometimes you get really hairy bugs that even qualified
> > developers would have trouble to fix... then you need to holer
> > for help until somone helps... Isn't ther
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 10:30:01PM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 August 2003 18:42, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
> > Your conclusion that long DAM wait times leads to slow releases has
> > little or no basis in fact. You do not need to have completed the NM
> >
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 02:26:10PM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote:
> Yep, this was before NM was closed indefinitely. From sometime around
> early 1999 until mid 2000 (June iirc) NM was closed, as far as I know
> no one at all was accepted into Debian during this time. IIRC Wichert
> finally got the bal
The sparc buildd vore.debian.org is in a Catch-22 kind of state, where package
builds die because of a problem with sbcl 0.8.2.12-3 failing to complete its
configuration, including newer versions of sbcl and common-lisp-controller
that have been uploaded to fix the problem! Someone with root permi
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:27:24PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 14:32, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > Except when your sponsor goes AWOL for 3 weeks after giving them the URL
> > to download the packages to paw through and upload.
>
> This is not different than someone in your pa
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 08:18:00AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:58:22AM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
> > IMHO, people should not package or take over a package that they
> > do not understand how it works. For example, a kernel maintainer
> [...]
> > People should maintain
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 08:28:26PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 08:39:52PM +0200, Oliver Bausinger wrote:
> > > Someone should point NMs to difficulty of entering the development
> > > mainstream of FreeBSD or becoming maintainer for the kernel...
> > > IMO it's generally
On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 20:18, Adam Majer wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:27:24PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 14:32, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > > Except when your sponsor goes AWOL for 3 weeks after giving them the
> > > URL
> > > to download the packages to paw through
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 02:38:34PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Chris Cheney wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 01:41:45PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> > > On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Chris Cheney wrote:
> > >
> > > Not to toot my own horn, but I was accepted in under one week. I took 2
On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 02:17, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 09:33:26AM -0500, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> > > > Am I the only one who has a disgusting reminiscence of netscape*.*
> > > > packages every time python* is mentioned? :P
> >
> > > hmmm.. just curious... why?
> >
> > The short
http://wzlighter.126.com
网络实名：恒星烟具
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 05:34:06PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:09:15PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > I disagree; if the applicant knows why they are being delayed, then
> > the fact that this information is not published on the website does
> > not indicate that
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 10:22:01PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 05:34:06PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:09:15PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > I disagree; if the applicant knows why they are being delayed, then
> > > the fact that th
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> Could someone please NMU dovecot adding the patch in bug #203892?
>
> Either gcc 3.3.1 sucks or I'm having another hardware problem,
>
> ...
>
> Making all in lib
> make[4]: Entering directory
> `/home/jaldhar/src/dovecot/dovecot-0.99.10/src/lib'
> i386
101 - 197 of 197 matches
Mail list logo
