On Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 09:55:58AM -0500, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
[...]
> Mutt has a Y2K bug in dealing with messages containing a 2 digit
> year. If the date in a message says something like "Jan 1, 00" Mutt is
> going to see it as "Feb 7, 2036". If the date says "Jan 1, 2000" then
>
On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, Steve Borho said:
SB>On Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 01:43:39PM -0500, Chuck Mead wrote:
SB>> SB>
SB>> SB>doh!
SB>> SB>
SB>> SB>sagan% sudo rpm -Uvh rpm-*
SB>> SB>error: failed dependencies:
SB>> SB>bzip2 >= 0.9.0c-2 is needed by rpm-3.0.3-6x
SB>> SB>libbz2.so.0 is nee
On Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 01:43:39PM -0500, Chuck Mead wrote:
> SB>
> SB>doh!
> SB>
> SB>sagan% sudo rpm -Uvh rpm-*
> SB>error: failed dependencies:
> SB>bzip2 >= 0.9.0c-2 is needed by rpm-3.0.3-6x
> SB>libbz2.so.0 is needed by rpm-3.0.3-6x
>
> This should help:
>
> ftp://ftp.redha
On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, Steve Borho said:
SB>On Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 01:40:27PM -0500, Chuck Mead wrote:
SB>> Bugzilla is good but I'd think the folks on the rpm list would love to hear
SB>> about this! I know that JJ was pounding the keys cleaning up rpm internals
SB>> pretty hard before Christmas.
On Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 01:40:27PM -0500, Chuck Mead wrote:
> Bugzilla is good but I'd think the folks on the rpm list would love to hear
> about this! I know that JJ was pounding the keys cleaning up rpm internals
> pretty hard before Christmas... if there is a bug I know he'd love to hear
> abo
On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, Steve Borho said:
SB>On Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 12:37:29PM -0600, Steve Borho wrote:
SB>> I reported it to Red Hat's Bugzilla, but not to the rpm list.
SB>>
SB>> >
SB>> > ftp://ftp.rpm.org/pub/rpm/dist/rpm-3.0.x/rpm-3.0.3-6x.alpha.rpm
SB>> >
SB>> > ftp://ftp.rpm.org/pub/rpm/di
On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, Steve Borho said:
SB>On Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 01:33:06PM -0500, Chuck Mead wrote:
SB>> Included above are my versions for comparisons sake... have you reported this
SB>> problem to the rpm list? Note that I do see some differences here... you can
SB>> get an updated version of
On Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 12:37:29PM -0600, Steve Borho wrote:
> I reported it to Red Hat's Bugzilla, but not to the rpm list.
>
> >
> > ftp://ftp.rpm.org/pub/rpm/dist/rpm-3.0.x/rpm-3.0.3-6x.alpha.rpm
> >
> > ftp://ftp.rpm.org/pub/rpm/dist/rpm-3.0.x/rpm-devel-3.0.3-6x.alpha.rpm
>
> Excuse me whi
On Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 01:33:06PM -0500, Chuck Mead wrote:
> Included above are my versions for comparisons sake... have you reported this
> problem to the rpm list? Note that I do see some differences here... you can
> get an updated version of rpm from:
I reported it to Red Hat's Bugzilla, bu
On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, Steve Borho said:
SB>On Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 01:13:40PM -0500, Chuck Mead wrote:
SB>> Could you be more specific about this? I just built the latest bind
SB>> src.rpm from rawhide with no troubles and it has a pile of 1999 entires
SB>> in the ChangeLog.
SB>>
SB>> What RH vers
On Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 01:13:40PM -0500, Chuck Mead wrote:
> Could you be more specific about this? I just built the latest bind
> src.rpm from rawhide with no troubles and it has a pile of 1999 entires
> in the ChangeLog.
>
> What RH version?
> What version of RPM?
> What version of Perl?
> Wha
On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, Steve Borho said:
SB>On Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 09:55:58AM -0500, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
SB>> Hey All!
SB>>
SB>>Adding to the discussions of what did and did not fail the Y2K
SB>> rollover. I've encountered 3 Y2K glitches. At least one is a package
SB>> with RedHat.
SB
At 09:55 AM 1/3/00 -0500, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> Printing with "genscript" reports the year as "100" in the fancy
>"-G" headers. Not sure if it's a genscript problem, a ghostscript problem,
>or a problem with a postscript printer. I suspect genscript. Don't know
>if "enscript" on t
On Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 09:55:58AM -0500, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> Hey All!
>
> Adding to the discussions of what did and did not fail the Y2K
> rollover. I've encountered 3 Y2K glitches. At least one is a package
> with RedHat.
I found a bug in rpm yesterday that keeps you from buil
14 matches
Mail list logo
