Wendell Cochran wrote:
[snip]
> Here's the great precept of Unix: Let each command do one thing, &
> do it well. That goes for English sentences, too.
This is wisdom condensed, and is too great for me.
Tom
csj wrote:
[snip]
> Deviant is a politically incorrect term (but you're free to use it).
> Yesterday's conformists may well be today's deviants. Imagine somebody
> wearing Victorian dress to work or speaking Shakespeare at a board
> meeting.
My apologies. I was aware of the incorrectness of devia
On Tuesday 19 February 2002 11:21 am, csj wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 17:50:02 -0800
>
> ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > as far as the shift key is concerned, do you really contend that any
> > phrase consisting of a misplaced sequence of english words that, by your
> > own suggestion, might be
On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 17:50:02 -0800
ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> as far as the shift key is concerned, do you really contend that any phrase
> consisting of a misplaced sequence of english words that, by your own
> suggestion, might be rendered apparent in its meaning only through
> forek
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002 10:08:14 +1030
Tom Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> csj wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 10:41:48AM +1030, Tom Cook wrote:
> > > Wendell Cochran wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 03:52:42 +0100
> > > > Carel Fellinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
> > > >
> > > > >
Tue, 19 Feb 2002 06:44:21 +0800
csj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
debian-user@lists.debian.org
> > > > > > > and here is really no interest in ridiculing anyone and
> > > > > > > less someone who would formulate constructiv
On Monday 18 February 2002 02:44 pm, csj wrote:
> > > > > > > and here is really no interest in ridiculing anyone and
> > > > > > > less someone who would formulate constructively his
> > > > > > > criticism and suggestions ...
>
> For the life of me, I can't see what's unclear about this
> constr
* Tom Cook ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
...
> This paragraph runs close to nonsense! Imagine (you don't need too much
> imagination!) if Micro$oft released a product which didn't conform to
> the relevant standard.
No need for any imagination. Just see .sig (and weep).
Dima
--
Riding roug
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 06:44:21AM +0800, csj wrote:
[snip]
> > > >> i really really don't want you to construe this as any kind of
> > > >> xenophobia,
> > > >> but this phrase above just doesn't work in english. i have no idea
> > > >> what you
> > > >> meant to convey by this.
> > >
> > > >
csj wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 10:41:48AM +1030, Tom Cook wrote:
> > Wendell Cochran wrote:
> > >
> > > Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 03:52:42 +0100
> > > Carel Fellinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
> > >
> > > > > > > and here is really no interest in ridiculing anyone and
> > > > > > > less someone w
On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 10:41:48AM +1030, Tom Cook wrote:
> Wendell Cochran wrote:
> >
> > Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 03:52:42 +0100
> > Carel Fellinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
> >
> > > > > > and here is really no interest in ridiculing anyone and
> > > > > > less someone who would formulate construct
Carel Fellinger wrote:
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 06:37:23PM -0800, ben wrote:
On Saturday 16 February 2002 06:33 pm, you wrote:
On Saturday 16 February 2002 11:41 am, MH wrote:
[snip]
and here is really no interest in ridiculing anyone and less someone
who would formulate constructively his
On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 01:27:08PM +1030, Tom Cook wrote:
> "Eric G. Miller" wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 12:09:06PM +1030, Tom Cook wrote:
> > > Tony Crawford wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Tom Cook wrote (on 18 Feb 2002 at 10:41):
> > > >
> > > > > [You should be more optimistic.] There is no
"Eric G. Miller" wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 12:09:06PM +1030, Tom Cook wrote:
> > Tony Crawford wrote:
> > >
> > > Tom Cook wrote (on 18 Feb 2002 at 10:41):
> > >
> > > > [You should be more optimistic.] There is no interest here in
> > > > ridiculing anyone, even less someone who formula
On 2002.02.17 16:50:32 +0100 Wendell Cochran wrote:
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 03:52:42 +0100
Carel Fellinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
> > > > and here is really no interest in ridiculing anyone and less
someone who would formulate constructively his criticism and suggestions
...
>> i really really do
On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 12:09:06PM +1030, Tom Cook wrote:
> Tony Crawford wrote:
> >
> > Tom Cook wrote (on 18 Feb 2002 at 10:41):
> >
> > > [You should be more optimistic.] There is no interest here in
> > > ridiculing anyone, even less someone who formulates his
> > > criticisms and suggestion
Tony Crawford wrote:
>
> Tom Cook wrote (on 18 Feb 2002 at 10:41):
>
> > [You should be more optimistic.] There is no interest here in
> > ridiculing anyone, even less someone who formulates his
> > criticisms and suggestions constructively.
> >
> > Here endeth the lesson. ;-)
>
> How much is l
Tom Cook wrote (on 18 Feb 2002 at 10:41):
> [You should be more optimistic.] There is no interest here in
> ridiculing anyone, even less someone who formulates his
> criticisms and suggestions constructively.
>
> Here endeth the lesson. ;-)
How much is less than no interest?
SCNR
(BTW I'd gue
On Sun, 2002-02-17 at 18:11, Tom Cook wrote:
> Here endeth the lesson. ;-)
One can't help but be educated by reading this list... :) While I'm not
a "native" English speaker per se, I'm about as close as one can get,
and I still consider myself educated by that post! :)
-Alex
signature.asc
Des
Wendell Cochran wrote:
>
> Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 03:52:42 +0100
> Carel Fellinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
>
> > > > > and here is really no interest in ridiculing anyone and less someone
> > > > > who would formulate constructively his criticism and suggestions ...
>
> >> i really really don't w
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 03:52:42 +0100
Carel Fellinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
> > > > and here is really no interest in ridiculing anyone and less someone
> > > > who would formulate constructively his criticism and suggestions ...
>> i really really don't want you to construe this
> "ben" == ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
ben> On Saturday 16 February 2002 06:52 pm, Carel Fellinger wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 06:37:23PM -0800, ben wrote:
>> > On Saturday 16 February 2002 06:33 pm, you wrote:
>> > > On Saturday 16 February 2002 11:41 am, MH wrote:
On Saturday 16 February 2002 06:52 pm, Carel Fellinger wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 06:37:23PM -0800, ben wrote:
> > On Saturday 16 February 2002 06:33 pm, you wrote:
> > > On Saturday 16 February 2002 11:41 am, MH wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > and here is really no interest in ridiculing a
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 06:37:23PM -0800, ben wrote:
> On Saturday 16 February 2002 06:33 pm, you wrote:
> > On Saturday 16 February 2002 11:41 am, MH wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > > and here is really no interest in ridiculing anyone and less someone
> > > who would formulate constructively his critic
On Saturday 16 February 2002 06:33 pm, you wrote:
> On Saturday 16 February 2002 11:41 am, MH wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > and here is really no interest in ridiculing anyone and less someone
> > who would formulate constructively his criticism and suggestions ...
>
i really really don't want you to const
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 03:50:22PM -0600, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
> * Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
> > You are on crack. The maintainer's bug report against debhelper
> > explicitly said that he didn't like the dependency on xutils.
>
> I'm on pot actually. I'm whining about a gene
* Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 12:51:48PM -0600, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
> > As far as I can tell the bug is between maintainer's chair and
> > keyboard. I don't see how filing a bug against $PACKAGE will fix
> > that, I fully expect that bug to be marked "
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 12:51:48PM -0600, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
> As far as I can tell the bug is between maintainer's chair and
> keyboard. I don't see how filing a bug against $PACKAGE will fix
> that, I fully expect that bug to be marked "wontfix". Ridiculing
> the guy in public, OTOH, might wor
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 01:09:31PM -0600, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
> * Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
> > Yup, I saw that. I get rather fed up with people who transmute a known,
> > acknowledged issue into a rant about all of Debian though ...
>
> You didn't read my relpy to dman, did
> "Dimitri" == Dimitri Maziuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dimitri> * MH ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly: ...
>> What's about filing a bug against bitchx instead of passively
>> complaining here...
Dimitri> I'm complaining rather actively (check the archives). My
Dimitri>
* Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 01:06:02PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Colin Watson wrote:
> > > Because that wouldn't make him feel so l33t? It would also require him
> > > to actually read the changelog.
> > >
> > > * Depend on xutils to eliminate a g
* MH ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
...
> What's about filing a bug against bitchx instead of passively
> complaining here...
I'm complaining rather actively (check the archives). My gripe
is not with bitchx per se (I've only logged on to irc once or
twice last year, I just did a dpkg --purg
On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 02:54:39PM -0600, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
| * dman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
| > On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 12:56:19PM -0600, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
| > | Ok, now bitchx depends on xutils, who in turn suggests xfree86-common,
| >
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 01:06:02PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Colin Watson wrote:
> > Because that wouldn't make him feel so l33t? It would also require him
> > to actually read the changelog.
> >
> > * Depend on xutils to eliminate a godawful postinst hack which no
> > longer worked anyway.
Colin Watson wrote:
> Because that wouldn't make him feel so l33t? It would also require him
> to actually read the changelog.
>
> * Depend on xutils to eliminate a godawful postinst hack which no
> longer worked anyway. This isn't my favorite solution, as xutils
> is big, but it will d
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 07:51:32AM +0100, MH wrote:
> > "Dimitri" == Dimitri Maziuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dimitri> Besides, that wasn't my point. I was referring to all
> Dimitri> those useless libraries that get installed "because
> Dimitri> somebody might want to * run $fo
> "Dimitri" == Dimitri Maziuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dimitri> * dman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 12:56:19PM -0600, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
>> | Ok, now bitchx depends on xutils, who in turn suggests
>> xfree86-common, | who in turn d
* dman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 12:56:19PM -0600, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
> | Ok, now bitchx depends on xutils, who in turn suggests xfree86-common,
>
> | who in turn depends on libaxw and so on (THIS BOX HAS
On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 12:56:19PM -0600, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
| Ok, now bitchx depends on xutils, who in turn suggests xfree86-common,
| who in turn depends on libaxw and so on (THIS BOX HAS NO FSCKING X!!!).
It is a sugggestion, not a req
Ok, now bitchx depends on xutils, who in turn suggests xfree86-common,
who in turn depends on libaxw and so on (THIS BOX HAS NO FSCKING X!!!).
So I have a suggestion: why don't we make ALL libraries "required" and
just install all of them as part of the base system?
(Well, sans non-DFSG-compliant
40 matches
Mail list logo
