On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 11:55:23PM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 06:14:26PM -0400, Janez Rabzelj Zappone wrote:
> > Hi, the project is dead?
> >
> No, this is not an ex-project. It is sleeping! Not unlike the Norwegian
> blue parrot!
> Cheers,
> Kev
Which was because of a par
On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 12:13:44AM -0500, kamaraju kusumanchi wrote:
>I might be acting a bit paranoid here but I am starting to feel that
> users are getting confused between multiple forms of support available -
> forums.debian.net and other mailing lists such as debian-user for example.
>
On 10597 March 1977, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
>> Well, I won't try to convince you to prioritize the "new binary packages
>> from known source package" because last I heard (some 360 days ago), you
>> didn't need convincing. Assuming that those 40-some packages affected
>> are easier to process, it'
David Jarvie, 2006-03-17 23:30:17 +0100 :
[...]
> dh_install -pkalarm-upgrade
> cp: cannot stat `./debian/tmp/usr/bin/kalarm': No such file or directory
> dh_install: command returned error code 256
> make: *** [binary-install/kalarm-upgrade] Error 1
>
> True enough, a tmp directory doesn't exist
On Friday 17 March 2006 22:39, Michael Banck wrote:
> Your question rather belongs on the debian-mentors list.
>
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 10:21:25PM +, David Jarvie wrote:
> > cp: cannot stat `./debian/tmp/usr/bin/kalarm': No such file or directory
> > dh_install: command returned error code 2
Copy sent to the mail-list as I have problems with direct mail (error
message below my signature).
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 05:14:08PM +0100, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote :
> * o3totxt - creates plain text
Hello,
It would be great if, similarly to antiword, this program would be easy
to be u
On 10595 March 1977, Sven Luther wrote:
> There is a difference here though, this is my public process for expulsion,
No, this is a random flamewar on a random list and has *nothing* to do
with any actually running process anywhere.
> and i believe i should have the right to be heard.
No mail i
On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 03:07:41PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 10595 March 1977, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > There is a difference here though, this is my public process for expulsion,
>
> No, this is a random flamewar on a random list and has *nothing* to do
> with any actually running process
Roland Mas wrote:
> It sounds more like a change in debhelper. I seem to remember
> something recently about a change in the default compatibility level.
The default compatability is, a and will always be, 1. debhelper does
not break backwards compatibility.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Descri
* Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-18 13:47]:
> > It sounds more like a change in debhelper. I seem to remember
> > something recently about a change in the default compatibility level.
> The default compatability is, a and will always be, 1. debhelper does
> not break backwards compatibilit
On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 01:56:13PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Hi people,
>
> I just wondered why exactly my laptop uses that much time for updates
> and I think that calling ldconfig is a main problem. In theory, it
> should not cost much time because VFS cache has the relevant file parts.
> How
On 16-Mar-06, 21:39 (CST), Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Daniel" == Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Daniel> The following is technically a well-formed diff:
>
> Daniel> --- init/main.c.orig2006-03-15 23:11:48.0 +0200
> Daniel> +++ init/main.c
Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
You have too old version of libgcc1-arm-cross, that does not provide
libgcc1-arm-dcv1 (and, btw, installs to /usr/arm-linux/)
No, that's not true. It does install into /usr/arm-linux-gnu.
I got this one from the latest gcc sources
(4.0.2-9). And it still doe
#include
* Bill Allombert [Sat, Mar 18 2006, 02:56:27PM]:
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 01:56:13PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > Hi people,
> >
> > I just wondered why exactly my laptop uses that much time for updates
> > and I think that calling ldconfig is a main problem. In theory, it
> > should
#include
* Eduard Bloch [Sat, Mar 18 2006, 10:52:53PM]:
> #include
> * Bill Allombert [Sat, Mar 18 2006, 02:56:27PM]:
> > On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 01:56:13PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > > Hi people,
...
> > ld.so manpage imply the opposite.
>
> I would not be that sure. Following that manpage
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
Em Qui, 2006-03-16 às 15:09 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu:
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 01:46:59PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
Em Seg, 2006-03-13 ?s 17:30 +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov escreveu:
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
This is a call for help :). If you want to
On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 10:56:14PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> * Eduard Bloch [Sat, Mar 18 2006, 10:52:53PM]:
> > #include
> > * Bill Allombert [Sat, Mar 18 2006, 02:56:27PM]:
> > > On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 01:56:13PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > > > Hi people,
> ...
> > > ld.so manp
Hi,
> On forums.debian.net, people should be redirected to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> when they don't get an answer there, because debian-user has more
> 'powerusers' than forums.debian.net. The audiences of both support
> resources are reasonably separate, because people tend to either swear
> by forums
On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 04:01:58PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> You missed the sarcasm. I understood Daniel's point to be that just
> because a patch is syntatically correct doesn't mean that it will (or
> should) be applied.
The question is if the problems with the patches and the reason for n
* Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-19 08:06]:
> The question is if the problems with the patches and the reason for not
> applying it will be commented, thus giving the author a chance to modify it,
> or change his approach to fixing the bug, or if the patch will be utherly
> ignored, whic
20 matches
Mail list logo
