Bug#3480: (no subject)

Subject: missing information in manpage Package: mkisofs Version: 1.05-1 The manpage issues the possibility to set a volume-id with -V volid but forgets to mention which size it may be, other sizes are mentioned: preparer_id, publisher_id Regards, Martin

Bug#3481: (no subject)

Subject: jkj Package: gcc Version: 2.7.2-5 Package: gcc Version: 2.7.2-5

Unidentified subject!

Unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Unidentified subject!

According to the Ftape-HOWTO, Travan drives are supported. Hope this helps. Susan Kleinmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#2054: no subject (file transmission)

Package: latex,xdvik Version: 2e-4, 18f-4 LaTeX + Xdvi + dvips cannot do a umlauts. A simple latex file was made with some \a s in it and they did not show up on xdvi as a umlauts, they were missing altogether. Using debian 0.93R6, kernel 1.2.13, libc4.6.27 Tuomas

Bug#2009: mailx ignores ^C at Subject prompt

Package: mailx Version: 8.1-5 -chiark:~/mail mailx spong Subject: ^C ^C ^Z [1]+ Stopped mailx spong -chiark:~/mail kill %1 [1]+ Stopped mailx spong -chiark:~/mail [1]+ Terminated mailx spong -chiark:~/mail

Unidentified subject!

On Thu, 7 Dec 1995, David Engel wrote: So far I have been unable to find a copy of the patch that lets you fall back to another directory. However, support is already in there to allow I don't know that the patch even exists anymore. However, a quick and dirty hack is only a two line

Warning people off 1.0 (was Re: Unidentified subject!)

Bill Mitchell writes (Re: Unidentified subject!): Matthew Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I don't know if this is a good news or bad news. but I think there is a big misunderstanding about debian-0.93 and debian-1.0 I really forsee the need to do this debian-0.93 release - debian-0.93

Re: Warning people off 1.0 (was Re: Unidentified subject!)

I wrote: I've added/edited various README's and .message files. Take a look at what you see now; I think it's pretty hard to miss ... I forgot to say that I *didn't* edit README.DEBIAN. Ian M., can you do that ? Ian.

Unidentified subject!

I don't know if this is a good news or bad news. but I think there is a big misunderstanding about debian-0.93 and debian-1.0 I really forsee the need to do this debian-0.93 release - debian-0.93 development/debian-1.0 NOTICE: NO LINK development/trial-packages (or some such instead of inside

Re: Unidentified subject!

Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 00:17:33 -0500 (EST) From: Matthew Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am getting 10 - 15 complaints a day about this debian-1.0 and how it won't install all the way or that it isn't all ELF as advertised previously. Well I know I bite my teeth and press delete on all

Re: Unidentified subject!

Matthew Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I don't know if this is a good news or bad news. but I think there is a big misunderstanding about debian-0.93 and debian-1.0 I really forsee the need to do this debian-0.93 release - debian-0.93 development/debian-1.0 NOTICE: NO LINK

Re: Unidentified subject!

On Fri, 17 Nov 1995, Ian Murdock wrote: Why would the mirror program be removing debian-0.93? No, They have told mirror to exclude it due to space restrictions I have been telling them NOT to mirror 1.0 if they are under a space crunch. But rather just get debian-0.93 instead.. --

Re: Unidentified subject!

Andrew D. Fernandes wrote: Date: Sun Oct 15 20:39:21 EDT 1995 Package: nls Version: 1.0-1 Description: The XFree86 Motif-1.2 resource defaults. Priority: Low # File: name size md5sum destination File: nls-1.0-1.deb 10086 97a80aaba566821cf61aa92c06421e74 binary/x11 File:

<    1   2   3   4   5