On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 11:24:06PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 05:51:03PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> >> >> If you still can't take the hint, I'll be more blunt: this isn't th
ered to document the problem; they're very
different things.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 06:01:26PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:06:06AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 10:52:48AM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> > > [1] Which is a separate rant, and frankly, I think Debian needs to be
> &g
27;'`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
l in
> prerm or postrm --remove, isn't that a release-critical bug?
Failing to remove is a grave bug anyway. Policy doesn't really
matter. Not every possible bug is written into policy.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 01:26:15PM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:08:27PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> >> In fact, the parts you have chosen to keep, and respond to, are the far
> >> *les
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 02:41:12PM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > All the rational discussion has always been about what constitutes
> > 'hiding',
>
> I have also read discussion about what we promise not
idea to exclude "o"; I doubt many packages use "o"
> as a word by itself at the beginning of a literally-formatted line, but it
> might be a word in some foreign language,
I know of at least two such languages. Don't include 'o&#x
x27;'`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 12:24:23PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Andrew Suffield
>
> | It's a method of working around bugs. Just fix the bugs
> | instead. Update libtool to the latest version and don't -l stuff you
> | don't need to -l.
>
> pkgco
n multiple hosts.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ng all
communication between them.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ften than the manual. I suggest that this is at least partially
because it's non-free - certainly that's the reason why you don't see
*me* submitting patches to fix it. I'm not working on non-free stuff
without getting paid for it.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux
es; don't abuse it.
[There are many other, more complicated cases. Consult -legal for
consideration of specific examples.]
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ot have that bug, so it's not important to us.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 08:12:38AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > We do not have that bug, so it's not important to us.
>
> Still, nobody has said. What filesystems available on Debian have a
> better than
Your mail was borderline incomprehensible and certainly not worth the
effort it would have required for me to read it. Go and eat a
dictionary.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http:/
read it. He's lucky that I did, and should be grateful for that. I
*could* have simply ignored him.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 03:57:12PM +0200, Rapha?l Pinson wrote:
> Le Mercredi 18 Mai 2005 15:48, Andrew Suffield a écrit :
> > On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 03:46:33PM +0200, Rapha?l Pinson wrote:
> > > I agree that the previous mail was not very easy to read, nor written in
> >
s. I got bored when /usr/lib
got up to 50k files and gave up, concluding that people were being
pointlessly whiny about nothing.
Even for tiny, trivial binaries, the linkers spend all their time
linking and no easily measurable time doing anything else.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Li
** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
her critical
nor trivial.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
s" and have any guarantee of
> > getting the correct lib).
>
> Does make me wonder why we ship libbfd.so and libopcodes.so, instead of
> just the static libraries.
To reduce the size of the binutils package, iirc. It has about a dozen
binaries, all of which need libbfd.
--
;s being wrong every time, on a weekly basis (because he has
an axe to grind but no actual point) which annoys people.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
too many
external factors. Although it may do now that x86-64 is going
mainstream; the principal reason it's never worked historically is
because the 'fastest' machines have been obscure stuff that gets
fucked for bu
ys something significant.
[Note that trying *modern* software on an old box, and observing how
much slower it is, just underlines my point. The comparison here is to
the software you would have run on it when the box was new].
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :&#x
GPG fingerprint together by the statement, and the
> > picture from #1, and with their "government" identity, as that is checked
> > by the notary).
> >
> > 4) I'd sign the key, and send the updated key to the e-mail address
> > given, signed by the GPG key wi
;goodwill', since most people
won't bother to check. This thread will probably become a good
example, most of the others did.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 09:30:40PM +0100, Rich Walker wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Moore's law is cpu speed.
>
> *TRANSISTORS* on a single die
>
> <http://www.intel.com/research/silicon/mooreslaw.htm>
Bah, yeah, but
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 02:13:54PM -0600, Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
> On Tuesday 31 May 2005 14:11, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 09:03:12AM -0600, Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
> > > I wrote this up to someone. I thought I'd share it, and get your
> &
to the textual portion.
Or you could shoehorn images into the textual portion, with
uuencode. See X-Face. Note that such systems must traditionally use
the most arcane and absurd image format possible.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ess.
The page itself is a good example of why things are the way they are,
though.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
there's no advantage to consuming an entire runlevel just to say
"/etc/init.d/xdm stop" or "/etc/init.d/networking stop", which is
all that you are proposing.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 09:37:29AM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 02:32:53PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 01:03:12AM +0200, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a
> > wrote:
> > > - inetd begone! -> xinetd (bett
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 05:06:45PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 June 2005 16:25, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 10:23:33AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
> > > To begin with we can all go back and review:
> > >
> > >
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 03:58:52PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Andrew Suffield]
> > It's supported just fine if you take backups at the appropriate
> > moment. I can't think of any useful way in which it could be more
> > supported than that.
>
>
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 10:06:55AM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 02:40:48PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 09:37:29AM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> > > Why? What if I prefer to have something from inetd only when neces
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 04:19:19PM +0200, Remi Vanicat wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 09:37:29AM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 02:32:53PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >>
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 02:18:28PM +0100, Simon Huggins wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 02:25:22PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 10:23:33AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
> > > To begin with we can all go back and review:
> > > http:
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 10:33:05AM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 02:40:48PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >
> > Why on earth would you? It's just more administrative overhead, and
> > yet another package you didn't need.
>
>
l file. Trying to do this *will not work*.
At the point when the changes are made, the source package HAS ALREADY
BEEN BUILT. What happens is that the changes made in the currentx build
get included in the *next* source package you build from the same
tree, so the source and binary are perpe
oblem: ...
- Here are some proposals for solving it, along with discussion of
their merits thus far determined: ...
A fait accompli looks like this:
- Here is what we're going to do: ...
It's not hard to tell the difference.
There has, to date, been no 'starting poin
x27;s why we
need keys in the first place (and all you people waving smtp-tls
around, go back and think about how useful that's going to be without
signing keys).
(I can't even be bothered to start laughing at the idea of encrypting
signatures. That's just too silly even for rid
On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 12:10:15AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 07:49:51AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 11:17:21PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > What are we setting out to achieve?
> > >
> > > -
power management', and is enabled by default on every
installation of X, last I looked (configure with 'xset dpms'). A
'screensaver' is those things which display silly animations, and has
to be installed extra.
So just don't install any screensavers. Why did you?
. You
must also check when their meaning changes. I have not yet been able
to find a way to do this on a per-symbol basis, only a per-library
one (I can find examples that break all the 'obvious' approaches).
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : h
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 12:15:25AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 08:07:34AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 04:26:36AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 17:20 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> &
or Copyright".
>
> You could also, as a courtesy to other readers, lay before us the
> stunningly obvious proof that a free software that elects to use
> trademarks automagically transmutates into non-free state.
That would be the part where the trademark holder tells y
simply another way to say that "the group of people who are
offended is a minority".
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
nd not false positives or false
negatives, pretty much speak for themselves (and the people who cite
them) as to their relevance.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><-
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 06:08:36PM +0200, Rapha?l Hertzog wrote:
> Le vendredi 17 juin 2005 à 14:09 +0100, Andrew Suffield a écrit :
> > > You could also, as a courtesy to other readers, lay before us the
> > > stunningly obvious proof that a free software that elects to
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 07:19:21PM +0200, Jonas Meurer wrote:
> On 17/06/2005 Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 04:25:43PM +0200, Jonas Meurer wrote:
> > > On 15/06/2005 Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> > > > Unfortunately people that are easily offen
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 03:10:07PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> * Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 06:08:36PM +0200, Rapha?l Hertzog wrote:
> > > Le vendredi 17 juin 2005 à 14:09 +0100, Andrew Suffield a écrit :
> > > > > You c
useless and should not be used. It can make
things worse rather than better, especially with the clocks in modern
boxes (which are grossly inaccurate).
Under *no circumstances* should adjtimex be used at the same time as
ntpd. The clock will jitter all over the place because they won&
sync up in seconds when it starts up, instead of hours, before
entering normal operation).
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ortune on a recurring basis. There are few things that could be fatal
to Debian, but introducing a requrement for an income of several grand
per month is one of them.
Besides which, it makes economic sense to have the do
On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 10:05:11PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Andrew Suffield
>
> | On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 02:32:36PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> | > I therefore propose
> | > that we do the following:
> | >
> | > * Don't install any screensav
nuisance to have to update all the tags in the future.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
e verisign certificates,
and you've got a helpful dialog box that appears whenever new
certificates are presented to the browser such that the user can just
whack 'ok' without reading it. SSL security on the internet at large
is a myth. Anybody who trusts it is insane; the ri
r?
Mail it to root.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
o be working.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
cc 4 and X.org
> would not IMHO.
I think that none of these things warrant a major version bump, and
the Debian major version number should be increased with releases of
fspanel.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 01:12:53AM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> Program based of concept of hard linking of files being atomic across
> NFS.
No.
Talk to debian-l10n-english@lists.debian.org
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' :
ood one. While it's not desperately
important for a package licensed entirely under the GPL, in general
you should include the license declaration from upstream in the
copyright file verbatim.
For a GPLed project, the declaration looks something like this:
* Copyright (C) Andre
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 09:59:55PM -0600, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > For a GPLed project, the declaration looks something like this:
> >
> > * Copyright (C) Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Should
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 09:08:37AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It's not required. And I get bored by updating them.
>
> Yes, the year is required, and moreover, you need to add a new year
> every time ther
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 11:16:19AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 09:08:37AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
>
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 11:27:12AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Like I care about that stuff. All I could ever want from copyright on
> > a GPLed work is an injunction to stop violating it.
>
> Actually, yo
good example of why. Lots of stuff in unstable just
won't build correctly with the versions of g++ in woody.
> and no C++ libraries in stable
> could have been built against that ABI.
Yeah, that part pretty much sucks.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ove it or lose it.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing,
`. `' | Imperial College,
`- -><- | London, UK
pgpmF5MQLLh5i.pgp
Description: PGP signature
, we should not
> go to CPU like i486 and just move to a Pentium Classic
> code (i586).
I vaguely recall something similar about the i586.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing,
`. `'
tiv.org/>
Correct, most people have never heard of this thing. Furthermore, it's
broken (zero-sized replies).
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing,
`. `' | Imperial College,
`- -><- | London, UK
pgp3C912GkzJX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
of an RC bug is a laughing matter.
Sure, people who have sticks up their arses don't. Mocking them is
great fun.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing,
`. `' | Imperial College,
`- -><- | London, UK
pgpDxIcyo6AJZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
'`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing,
`. `' | Imperial College,
`- -><- | London, UK
pgpJ5frMJNsjb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
should point out that there are a number of changes which _cannot_
be rolled back. Upgrading a libdb database to a new format version is
a good example.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing,
`. `'
.
It is not. Do not break the user system. Then no warnings are
necessary.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing,
`. `' | Imperial College,
`- -><- | London, UK
pgpW7OSzuLXYv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
documentation doesn't have to be".
We have historically allowed some free non-software things into the
archive, since it doesn't matter very much. Why does anybody think
that allowing non-free non-software things into the archive is
acceptable?
--
.''`. ** Debian GN
re as something
which is in compliance with Debian's principles, perhaps.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing,
`. `' | Imperial College,
`- -><- | London, UK
pgpv9xNnOeo1L.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:19:59PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:23:14PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> >> > That would be clause #1 of the Debian Social Contract.
> >>
&
>
> What do you propose ?
> Do you think Debian must keep old version of stunnel (3.x) for compatibility
Given how it sounds like upstream are completely incompetent and have
decided to gratuitously break compatibility, that sounds like a good idea.
> and do not include new version ?
le
things that are not packaged. Including a wide range of commercial
software.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing,
`. `' | Imperial College,
`- -><- | London, UK
pgpQv0gYmUKqP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
ation you describe is unlikely to occur because few
> people are perverse enough to make their software free but their
> documentation very non-free.
This is precisely the scenario we are currently discussing.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Lin
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 02:18:10AM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> On Friday 04 July 2003 01:52, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > What do you propose ?
> > > Do you think Debian must keep old version of stunnel (3.x) for
> > > compatibility
> >
> > Given
low the DFSG". If
you want to call it software, that's fine; we know what to do with
software.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing,
`. `' | Imperial College,
`- -><- | London, UK
pgptRcuKfKiVX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
re to be self-consequent?
If you have something _new_ to add to the discussion, please do so (on
-legal). Otherwise, kindly piss off.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing,
`. `' | Imperial College,
`- -><- | London, UK
pgpwvtnnuYDOb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
eds to
include non-free things".
I think you'll find a lot of people disagreeing with you.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing,
`. `' | Imperial College,
`- -><- | London, UK
pgpQMUHlTVjdD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
ribes which are the accepted licenses for
> documentation and points to some discussions about the subject in
> debian-legal.
This claims the GNU FDL is acceptable, so it's worse than useless.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 07:47:32PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >>people to http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/ddp-policy/ch-common.en.html.
> > This claims the GNU FDL is acceptable, so it's worse than useless.
> It claims that GNU FDL sans
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:47:19PM -0500, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:43:10PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > You have some free software, and it comes with a manual.
>
> Your counter example does not apply to IETF Standards documentation. It
> is not
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 02:30:47PM -0500, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 07:36:13PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Bullshit. It is common for RFCs to be revised over time, and
> > formulated into new documents. This license prohibits agencies other
> &g
ing
lawyer games with the wording will not make non-modifiable things
acceptable.
Any arguments you may care to make in favour of non-modifiable things
will apply equally to software.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.
h they were created, and should not vary when
rebuilding. As such, sorting the list probably doesn't change the
network traffic, but will slow dpkg-deb down on packages with large
directories in them.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www
On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 10:28:07PM +0200, Koblinger Egmont wrote:
>
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> > It should put them in the package in the order they came from
> > readdir(), which will depend on the filesystem. This is normally the
> > order in w
On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 05:48:24PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 10:12:03PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 10:28:07PM +0200, Koblinger Egmont wrote:
> > > Yes, when saying "random order" I obviously ment "in
On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 07:28:09PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 11:36:34PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 05:48:24PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > > Err, no. If the htree (hash tree) indexing feature is turned
like to have this information in debconf notes. Having
> > the choice between displaying them and reading them in NEWS.Debian would
> > be neat.
>
> He was JOKING... wasn't he?
Who can tell? Let's kill him anyway.
--
.''`
rowing like this?
Because it's damn near impossible to get the things removed.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing,
`. `' | Imperial College,
`- -><- | London, UK
pgpnxKlZg4btQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 08:32:01AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 11-Jul-03, 02:21 (CDT), Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Because it's damn near impossible to get the things removed.
>
> Huh? Submit a bug report against ftp.debian.or
lename it looks for.
Requiring clear identification of changes, and "Changing the name",
are OK. Putting constraints on how this is to be done, like requiring
a filename change, is not.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://ww
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 01:48:27PM +0200, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 12:03:22PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 12:17:50PM +0200, Martin Quinson wrote:
> > > Answer 1: Nobody asked the right to change th
101 - 200 of 383 matches
Mail list logo
