On Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 05:25:12PM +, Anthony Campbell wrote
> On 07 Jan 2000, Pann McCuaig wrote:
> > There was one more pass. You can (or at least could) get it from the
> > same place.
> >
> > $ dpkg -l | grep slrn
> > ii slrn0.9.5.3-6 threaded news reader (fast for slow
On 07 Jan 2000, Pann McCuaig wrote:
> There was one more pass. You can (or at least could) get it from the
> same place.
>
> $ dpkg -l | grep slrn
> ii slrn0.9.5.3-6 threaded news reader (fast for slow links)
>
That's the one I have, which no longer works.
Anthony
--
Anthon
There was one more pass. You can (or at least could) get it from the
same place.
$ dpkg -l | grep slrn
ii slrn0.9.5.3-6 threaded news reader (fast for slow links)
On Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 11:18, Anthony Campbell wrote:
> On 03 Jan 2000, Pann McCuaig wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 03, 200
On 03 Jan 2000, Pann McCuaig wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 13:05, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Joey Hess wrote:
> > > I have just uploaded slrn 0.9.5.3-5 for stable, which fixes this bug. You
> > > can get it temporarily at ...
> >
> > Er I meant to say at http://va.debian.org/~joeyh/slrn_0.9.5.3-5_i38
John wrote:
>I have only just seen your message. The error is in the email program
>made available to me by my ISP when I signed on some 20 months ago.
>I had noted the problem with incoming mail, but did not think it would
>affect outgoing mail onto other machines. If I've caused any dif
on 06 Jan, Oliver Elphick wrote...
>
I have only just seen your message. The error is in the email program
made available to me by my ISP when I signed on some 20 months ago.
I had noted the problem with incoming mail, but did not think it would
affect outgoing mail onto other machines. If I've
Quoting Nico De Ranter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> The original sender uses a broken mail program. It's not on your side.
>
> Nico
>
> On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Oliver Elphick wrote:
>
> > This message to debian-user shows an invalid date; (year 100). I have
> > seen a couple of others like this on a
The original sender uses a broken mail program. It's not on your side.
Nico
On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> This message to debian-user shows an invalid date; (year 100). I have
> seen a couple of others like this on a non-debian list, where another
> subscriber did not see the er
On Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 13:05, Joey Hess wrote:
> Joey Hess wrote:
> > I have just uploaded slrn 0.9.5.3-5 for stable, which fixes this bug. You
> > can get it temporarily at ...
>
> Er I meant to say at http://va.debian.org/~joeyh/slrn_0.9.5.3-5_i386.deb
>
> > Pann, Jim please download that and
Joey Hess wrote:
> I have just uploaded slrn 0.9.5.3-5 for stable, which fixes this bug. You
> can get it temporarily at ...
Er I meant to say at http://va.debian.org/~joeyh/slrn_0.9.5.3-5_i386.deb
> Pann, Jim please download that and let me know if it really fixes the problem.
--
see shy jo
I have just uploaded slrn 0.9.5.3-5 for stable, which fixes this bug. You
can get it temporarily at ...
Pann, Jim please download that and let me know if it really fixes the problem.
--
see shy jo
Brian Servis wrote:
> The bug by the way is the result of sloppy programming. There is a c
> library call that returns the year as the number of years from 1900,
> also used in perl's Time::Local. Authors were using that as the two
> digit year or just appending it to 19, so you are either seeing
> Sounds good, but it won't install. Seems that debhelper has to be
> upgraded as well and 'that' seems to require the perl upgrade.
> Depbelper fails with
> DH_VERSION=10 perl -MTest::Harness -e 'runtests grep { ! /CVS/ }
[...]
I had this problem as well, but the answer I got from the -devel-L
On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 22:09, Colin Watson wrote:
> Pann McCuaig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Here is my $HOME/.jnewsrc.time:
> >
> >NEWGROUPS 1000102 173956 GMT
> >
> >Looks like there's a 100 where a 2000 ought to be.
>
> See:
>
> http://cgi.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=53811
Thank
Subject: Re: Y2K problem with slrn?
Date: Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 05:49:36PM -0500
In reply to:Brian Servis
Quoting Brian Servis([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>| *- On 2 Jan, Colin Watson wrote about "Re: Y2K problem with slrn?"
>| > Pann McCuaig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
*- On 2 Jan, Colin Watson wrote about "Re: Y2K problem with slrn?"
> Pann McCuaig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Here is my $HOME/.jnewsrc.time:
>>
>>NEWGROUPS 1000102 173956 GMT
>>
>>Looks like there's a 100 where a 2000 ought to be.
>
>
Pann McCuaig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Here is my $HOME/.jnewsrc.time:
>
>NEWGROUPS 1000102 173956 GMT
>
>Looks like there's a 100 where a 2000 ought to be.
See:
http://cgi.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=53811
I imagine there'll be a new release of slrn out soon that solves this
proble
sorry another 48 years till y2k ;)
nate
On Sat, 1 Jan 2000, Patrick Kirk wrote:
patric >Happy GNU Millennium all!
patric >
patric >
patric >
patric >--
patric >Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
patric >
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTEC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Takuo KITAME) writes:
> RM> I'm running emacs 19.34, compiled back in Sep 1996, on Linux, Solaris and
> RM> IRIX64. I haven't found a definitive answer as to whether or not it has
> RM> Y2K problems.
>
> RM> Does anybody know if timezone.el is the only problem?
>
> for example
> On Wed, 29 Dec 1999 09:52:22 -0700 (MST)
> "RM" == Rick Macdonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote...
RM> On 29 Dec 1999, Takuo KITAME wrote:
>> I think that emacs19 19.34(potato/slink) and emacs20 20.3(slink) has the y2k
>> problem in lisp/timezone.el.
>> Are package maintainer or anybody wo
On 29 Dec 1999, Takuo KITAME wrote:
> I think that emacs19 19.34(potato/slink) and emacs20 20.3(slink) has the y2k
> problem in lisp/timezone.el.
> Are package maintainer or anybody working for fix this? or already fixed?
>
> Here is the fixed timezone.el.
> http://master.debian.org/~kitame/tmp
thanks for the tips! i can now rest pretty easy :))
nate
On 5 Nov 1999, John Hasler wrote:
john >aphro writes:
john >> also, what are the chances that software on the system will check the
john >> date from the hardware clock and not the software clock (hwclock as
john >> opposed to date).
john
aphro writes:
> also, what are the chances that software on the system will check the
> date from the hardware clock and not the software clock (hwclock as
> opposed to date).
Zero.
> i don't want to feel rushed to shut down the main server if the danger is
> not that great.
It isn't. Linux onl
On Thu, Sep 02, 1999 at 19:54:07 +0200, Marcel von Ranson wrote:
> Ref.:
> wsb SPARC-Solaris 2.0b01
> To ensure y2k compliance of our hardware/software partners we would like
> to ask for information.
The Debian project does not deal with Solaris in any way. If you are
interested in running Debia
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 3/30/99 10:23:17 AM Central Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > You forgot that Gnome and KDE aren't either (for you AOLamers out there,
> > neither is Info) :)
>
> If that's true, the programmers working on KDE and GNOME out to be noodle
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Anyway, what does Info and AOL have to do with each other? Or did I miss
> something?
You missed the fact the the entire post was a troll and you got sucked in.
There shouldn't be Y2K issues for most Unix (including Linux) applications,
any distro or whatever. (Yes,
In a message dated 3/30/99 10:23:17 AM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> You forgot that Gnome and KDE aren't either (for you AOLamers out there,
> neither is Info) :)
If that's true, the programmers working on KDE and GNOME out to be noodle-
whipped in public. These products a
You forgot that Gnome and KDE aren't either (for you AOLamers out there,
neither is Info) :)
On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Mitch Blevins wrote:
> In foo.debian-user, you wrote:
> > I get a Slackware 2.0.29 Kernel of Linux. I'd like to know if it's Y2K.
> > If not which version is Y2K.
>
> Only Debian GN
In foo.debian-user, you wrote:
> I get a Slackware 2.0.29 Kernel of Linux. I'd like to know if it's Y2K.
> If not which version is Y2K.
Only Debian GNU/Linux is Y2K compliant (any version). All other distros
will fail at the end of this year. Please reformat your Slackware system
and install Deb
On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, CSR de Port-au-Prince wrote:
> I get a Slackware 2.0.29 Kernel of Linux. I'd like to know if it's Y2K.
> If not which version is Y2K.
>
> Thank you to answer me at
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Thanks
> Reynold GUERRIER
Reynold:
Y2K problems stem from a two digit date, do
Here's a link to Debian's Y2K statement:
http://www.debian.org/News/1998/19980104
Noel
*- Robert Dominguez wrote about "Y2K Compliant?"
| Hello,
|
| I am Robert Dominguez. My company uses Debian GNU Linux 1.3
| running a DNS server. The OS works fine with no bugs. My question
| is, is this version compliant with Y2K. I really don't see how it's
| directly affected but I had
On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, Robert Dominguez wrote:
> I am Robert Dominguez. My company uses Debian GNU Linux 1.3
> running a DNS server. The OS works fine with no bugs. My question
> is, is this version compliant with Y2K. I really don't see how it's
> directly affected but I had to ask. If you
On Wed, 30 Sep 1998, Stephen J. Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 11:01:22AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> I agree...but...they still could be. Isn't that exactly what the people who
> were writting mainframe applications a few yars ago said? :)
>
> "Nah this system wont be in use past 9
pient's address is unknown.
Subject:Re: Y2K+38 disaster in debian?
Quoting Stephen J. Carpenter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 11:01:22AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> > 2) 64 bit math is _very_ slow on a 32 bit machine. Since time_t is used
> > all o
On Wed, 30 Sep 1998, Michael Stone wrote:
[ snip ]
: If you're using a pentium-class machine in 2038, you deserve what you
: get. I can't believe it would be operative after that long.
I know people still sing PDP-11s -today- ! Who would have thought
they'd still be around? Their cost of own
Quoting Stephen J. Carpenter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 11:01:22AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> > 2) 64 bit math is _very_ slow on a 32 bit machine. Since time_t is used
> > all over the place (e.g., the filesystem) you'd seriously slow things
> > down by making it 64 bits.
>
On Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 11:01:22AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> Quoting Philip Thiem ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > Why would 32-bit apps be limited to 32 bit integers?? Didn't we have 32
> > bit avallible to us on the 286?? If not, I'm certain we were able to
> > get around it then. Also if any one
Quoting Philip Thiem ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Why would 32-bit apps be limited to 32 bit integers?? Didn't we have 32
> bit avallible to us on the 286?? If not, I'm certain we were able to
> get around it then. Also if any one wants to make use of MMX registers
> there is even a 64-bit ASM MOV com
---
> From: dsb3 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, September 27, 1998 11:40 PM
> To: Miquel van Smoorenburg
> Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Y2K+38 disaster in debian?
>
> On 27 Sep 1998, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
>
> >In article <[EMAIL PROT
-Original Message-
From: dsb3 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 1998 11:40 PM
To: Miquel van Smoorenburg
Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Y2K+38 disaster in debian?
On 27 Sep 1998, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Miquel van Smoorenburg) writes:
> It's a kernel issue. On 32 bit platforms time_t will probably always be
> restricted to 32 bits, but on 64 bits systems such as the alpha time_t
> is 64 bits .. and by 2038 I expect everyone to be running at least
> a 64 bit machine.
BZZT, wron
On 27 Sep 1998, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Wojciech Zabolotny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Hi
>>There was a lot of noise about the y2k problem in old COBOL and M$
>>applications, but what about the "Y2K+38 disaster" in the POSIX world?
>>I was pretty sure that
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Wojciech Zabolotny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi
>There was a lot of noise about the y2k problem in old COBOL and M$
>applications, but what about the "Y2K+38 disaster" in the POSIX world?
>I was pretty sure that the new libc6 library implements 64 bit time_t,
It's
On Sun, Sep 27, 1998 at 02:55:08PM +0200, Wojciech Zabolotny wrote:
> Hi
> There was a lot of noise about the y2k problem in old COBOL and M$
> applications, but what about the "Y2K+38 disaster" in the POSIX world?
> I was pretty sure that the new libc6 library implements 64 bit time_t,
> but just
On Wed, Sep 09, 1998 at 01:52:38PM -0500, Stephanie A. Tomlinson wrote:
> Actually, i did check the debian web page. Unfortunately, i don't have the
> resources necessary to go on a long hunt for the information and it didn't
> seem to be readily noticeable on the site. Perhaps i'm smoking crack.
Actually, i did check the debian web page. Unfortunately, i don't have the
resources necessary to go on a long hunt for the information and it didn't
seem to be readily noticeable on the site. Perhaps i'm smoking crack.
At any rate...
On Wed, Sep 09, 1998 at 12:03:28PM -0500, Stephanie A. Tomlinson wrote:
> Ok, don't kill me.. i know you all are probably tired of/avoiding/irked with/
> frothing at the mouth because of the whole y2k compliance bruhaha.
>
> I just gotta find out... where might i find an official bullettin or who
Stephanie A. Tomlinson wrote:
>
> I just gotta find out... where might i find an official bullettin or who might
> i talk to in order to get an official statement concerning debian linux's
> y2k compliance?
>
You can always looks at the source code, you'll find no other
statements more "official
No problem.
http://www.debian.org/News/1998/19980104
Enjoy -- Greg.
--
What do you want to spend today?
Debian GNU/Linux (Free for an UNLIMITED time)
http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html
Greg VenceKH2EA/4
Sally Pesiri (HQ) wrote:
>
>
>
> Please feel free to call us if you are looking for an option to Your y2k
> projects for clients or yourself.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Sally Pesiri
>
You do realize that your Word attachment file is nearly 400k in size.
Sending a message with a 400k M$ Wor
51 matches
Mail list logo
