On Mon, 7 Oct 2019, Michael Stone wrote:
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 04:39:56PM +0300, Reco wrote:
No, I got you first time. Rather it's my response deviated elsewhere.
I see nothing in those three packages that would qualify as "xyzzy".
Alternatives? No. Mime types registration? No.
About the onl
On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 20:49:08 +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Brian wrote:
> > I am still wondering what use it is to "check for the existence of
> > that LDOSUBSCRIBER value of X-Spam-Status e-mail header *before*
> > replying to e-mail". How does it affect the actions one takes?
>
> As
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 10:05:30PM +0300, Reco wrote:
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 02:45:29PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 09:17:21PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:54:17PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> > I don't agree that responding to a troll will lead to a
On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:45:29 -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 09:17:21PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:54:17PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> > > I don't agree that responding to a troll will lead to a beneficial
> > > outcome.
> >
> > You're entitled to
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 02:45:29PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 09:17:21PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:54:17PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> > > I don't agree that responding to a troll will lead to a beneficial
> > > outcome.
> >
> > You're entitled
Michael Stone writes:
> Are there any real users with valid use cases for which this as an
> issue?
"I told it to remove xyzzy and it removed all of Gnome!" (or some other
metapackage) is a common complaint.
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA
On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 21:17:21 +0300, Reco wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:54:17PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 04:39:56PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > > No, I got you first time. Rather it's my response deviated elsewhere.
> > >
> > > I see nothing in those three package
Hi,
Brian wrote:
> I am still wondering what use it is to "check for the existence of
> that LDOSUBSCRIBER value of X-Spam-Status e-mail header *before*
> replying to e-mail". How does it affect the actions one takes?
As said, i use it as guideline whether to add a Cc: for the thread starter.
If
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 09:17:21PM +0300, Reco wrote:
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:54:17PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
I don't agree that responding to a troll will lead to a beneficial outcome.
You're entitled to your option, of course.
For context, the most recent message from that account s
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:54:17PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 04:39:56PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > No, I got you first time. Rather it's my response deviated elsewhere.
> >
> > I see nothing in those three packages that would qualify as "xyzzy".
> > Alternatives? No. Mime t
Hi.
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 06:34:20PM +0200, Linux-Fan wrote:
> Citing from that:
> | 6.7.10. Best practices for meta-packages
> | A meta-package is a mostly empty package that makes it easy to install a
> | coherent set of packages that can evolve over time. It achieves this by
> | depen
On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 10:56:30 -0500, David Wright wrote:
> On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 16:03:21 (+0300), Reco wrote:
[...]
> > Please show a e-mail from the list subscriber that does not have
> > aforementioned attribute, then we'll have something to talk about.
>
> Dead easy. Just configure your em
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 04:39:56PM +0300, Reco wrote:
No, I got you first time. Rather it's my response deviated elsewhere.
I see nothing in those three packages that would qualify as "xyzzy".
Alternatives? No. Mime types registration? No.
About the only common thing about all three packages is
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 10:56:30AM -0500, David Wright wrote:
> On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 16:03:21 (+0300), Reco wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:32:59PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:59:31 +0300, Reco wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 12:50:28PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > >
John Hasler writes:
Reco writes:
> The parent thread shows that at least some of the users are
> confused by metapackages.
I think that most users are totally ignorant of the nature or even the
existence of metapackages. As far as they are concerned the Lxqt
package *is* Lxqt and there is no w
Reco writes:
> The parent thread shows that at least some of the users are
> confused by metapackages.
I think that most users are totally ignorant of the nature or even the
existence of metapackages. As far as they are concerned the Lxqt
package *is* Lxqt and there is no way to get Lxqt other th
On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 16:03:21 (+0300), Reco wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:32:59PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:59:31 +0300, Reco wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 12:50:28PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > > > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:11:15 +0300, Reco wrote:
> > > > > On Mon,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Reco wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:08:04PM -, Dan Purgert wrote:
>> Reco wrote:
I don't think anything needs to be done here -- the whole idea of
(meta)packages is that you give up some choice for the benefits of not
having t
On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 16:03:21 +0300, Reco wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:32:59PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:59:31 +0300, Reco wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 12:50:28PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > > > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:11:15 +0300, Reco wrote:
> > > >
> >
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:08:04PM -, Dan Purgert wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Reco wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:56:33AM -, Dan Purgert wrote:
> >> > 3) Synaptic did not provide a user a meaningful choice.
> >> > [...]
> >> > I'm n
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Reco wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:56:33AM -, Dan Purgert wrote:
>> > 3) Synaptic did not provide a user a meaningful choice.
>> > [...]
>> > I'm not saying that Synaptic should be transformed to aptitude (which is
>> > famous
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:32:59PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:59:31 +0300, Reco wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 12:50:28PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:11:15 +0300, Reco wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:39:05AM +0100, Brian wrote:
> >
On 2019-10-07, Reco wrote:
>
> 1) Call me old-fashioned, but posters' personalities should not matter
> here, at this list.
I don't see what is old-fashioned about your opinion here. I would think
it were the gentilities of polite discourse that have become outmoded
(as demonstrated finely by the
On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:59:31 +0300, Reco wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 12:50:28PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:11:15 +0300, Reco wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:39:05AM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > > > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 11:28:03 +0300, Reco wrote:
> > > >
> >
Hi.
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:56:33AM -, Dan Purgert wrote:
> > 3) Synaptic did not provide a user a meaningful choice.
> > [...]
> > I'm not saying that Synaptic should be transformed to aptitude (which is
> > famous for its multi-choice resolver), we have one aptitude already,
> > p
On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 13:53:43 +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Reco wrote:
[...]
> Brian wrote:
> > The non-existence of LDOSUBSCRIBER in a mails's headers says nothing
> > definite about whether the poster is subscribed to the list or reads
> > list mails.
>
> To my best knowledge, "X
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Reco wrote:
> Hello, list.
>
> It may seem a thread hijacking (and may be it is), but I feel that the
> discussion of OP's problem has taken a wrong turn. Consider this a my
> attempt to put in on a right track ☺.
>
> So I've been reading this
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 12:50:28PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:11:15 +0300, Reco wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:39:05AM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 11:28:03 +0300, Reco wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > PS Just a friendly reminder. Please chec
Hi,
Reco wrote:
> > 1) Call me old-fashioned, but posters' personalities should not matter
> > here, at this list. [...]
> > The language OP is using could definitely use some improvement indeed,
It would serve the general issue of constructive discussion.
> > discussing OP's personality just b
On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:11:15 +0300, Reco wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:39:05AM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 11:28:03 +0300, Reco wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > PS Just a friendly reminder. Please check for the existence of that
> > > LDOSUBSCRIBER value of X-Spam-Status
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:39:05AM +0100, Brian wrote:
> On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 11:28:03 +0300, Reco wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > PS Just a friendly reminder. Please check for the existence of that
> > LDOSUBSCRIBER value of X-Spam-Status e-mail header *before* replying to
> > e-mail. Unless, of course
On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 11:28:03 +0300, Reco wrote:
[...]
> PS Just a friendly reminder. Please check for the existence of that
> LDOSUBSCRIBER value of X-Spam-Status e-mail header *before* replying to
> e-mail. Unless, of course, you intention is *not* to reply to OP but
> have your reply visible
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:28:03AM +0300, Reco wrote:
> Hello, list.
>
> It may seem a thread hijacking (and may be it is) [...]
I don't feel so. Thanks for this post.
Cheers
-- t
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hello, list.
It may seem a thread hijacking (and may be it is), but I feel that the
discussion of OP's problem has taken a wrong turn. Consider this a my
attempt to put in on a right track ☺.
So I've been reading this thread, and it got me thinking. I know, it's a
somewhat strange confess
34 matches
Mail list logo
