On Wednesday 14 July 2004 5:40 pm, Dale Amon wrote:
> The test was successful. I'm going to be keeping
> a backup copy of the system disk though, just in
> case something happens and I have to back out
> a dselect that breaks something mission critical
> to me...
Newest Mozilla package 1.7.1 wil
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 05:21:31PM -0500, Reid Priedhorsky wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 12:00:07 +0200, Dale Amon wrote:
> >
> > I'd like a black and white clarification of the impact
> > of the change so I know for certain whether to be
> > incredibly pissed off at the packager or not:
> >
> >
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 05:48:32PM -0500, Brad Sims wrote:
>On Monday 12 July 2004 2:33 am, Magnus Therning wrote:
>> Will you put those packages somewhere where others can reach them as
>> well?
>
>Hrm, I need more webspace, my ISP only gives me about 10M
>
>If you roll your own, read the new deve
On Monday 12 July 2004 2:33 am, Magnus Therning wrote:
> Will you put those packages somewhere where others can reach them as
> well?
Hrm, I need more webspace, my ISP only gives me about 10M
If you roll your own, read the new developer how-to to learn
how to make the debs version -99 that way ap
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 09:33:52AM +0200, Magnus Therning wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 07:28:56PM -0500, Brad Sims wrote:
> >On Saturday 10 July 2004 11:29 pm, Marc Wilson wrote:
> >> The numerous bugs that have been filed, and the way they've been dealt
> >> with, would seem to indicate that h
Magnus Therning wrote:
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 07:28:56PM -0500, Brad Sims wrote:
On Saturday 10 July 2004 11:29 pm, Marc Wilson wrote:
The numerous bugs that have been filed, and the way they've been dealt
with, would seem to indicate that he's not interested in participating.
Indee
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 07:28:56PM -0500, Brad Sims wrote:
>On Saturday 10 July 2004 11:29 pm, Marc Wilson wrote:
>> The numerous bugs that have been filed, and the way they've been dealt
>> with, would seem to indicate that he's not interested in participating.
>
>Indeed, his entire argument consi
On Saturday 10 July 2004 11:29 pm, Marc Wilson wrote:
> The numerous bugs that have been filed, and the way they've been dealt
> with, would seem to indicate that he's not interested in participating.
Indeed, his entire argument consists of "Me, Debian Developer. you, user."
"Me make decision; yo
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 05:29:13PM -0400, Carl Fink wrote:
> Has anyone invited our Mozilla packager to participate in this
> discussion?
The numerous bugs that have been filed, and the way they've been dealt
with, would seem to indicate that he's not interested in participating.
--
Marc Wilson
Has anyone invited our Mozilla packager to participate in this
discussion?
--
Carl Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jabootu's Minister of Proofreading
http://www.jabootu.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECT
* Don Armstrong:
> Perhaps I've missed something, but everything that I've read in the
> threads so far amounts to people either assuming that there's an issue
> and not defining it, or attempting to figure out where the issue is.
This summary is correct as far as I can see. No real security iss
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, Michael B Allen wrote:
> My impression was that the PostScript generator had the security
> issue
Can someone please state, for the record, definitively and precisely
what this "security issue" is?
The fact that PS is a turing complete language isn't a security issue,
beyond
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 11:19:03 -0400
Greg Folkert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Excuse the cross posting, but many are "discussing" on all of these
> lists.
>
> On Sat, 2004-07-10 at 06:47, Magnus Therning wrote:
> > >
> > > "If I were to dselect today, would I still
> > >be able to print to f
Excuse the cross posting, but many are "discussing" on all of these
lists.
On Sat, 2004-07-10 at 06:47, Magnus Therning wrote:
> >
> > "If I were to dselect today, would I still
> > be able to print to file a website page
> > as ps?" [Y/N]
>
> Yes. Printing PS to a file is still p
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 01:04:34PM -0400, Wayne Topa wrote:
> Jamin W. Collins([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said:
> > On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 02:49:10AM -0400, Michael B Allen wrote:
> > > On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 23:19:14 -0600 "Jamin W. Collins"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
Jamin W. Collins([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 02:49:10AM -0400, Michael B Allen wrote:
> > On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 23:19:14 -0600
> > "Jamin W. Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Direct print is the only way I can get reliable output here (I have bot
Michael B Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Printing through xprint is considerably nicer.
When xprint can finally query CUPS for all the information about my
printer, specifically resolution and paper sizes, I'll grant you
this.
Until then, I have to dive into circa 1985 config file hell te
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 02:49:10AM -0400, Michael B Allen wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 23:19:14 -0600
> "Jamin W. Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Direct print is the only way I can get reliable output here (I have both
> > options). Almost every time I use Xprint the last part of a line
Michael B Allen([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said:
> On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 20:52:37 -0400
> Wayne Topa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I am also running firefox 0.8 but it was installed with apt-get. I am
> > stuck with Xprint with no postscript/default. :-(
>
> Try it. Just run the Xprint
Michael B Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 09:15:36PM -0700, Marc Wilson wrote:
>> >
>> > Direct printing works for some people, and for others it doesn't.
>> > XPrint works for some people, and for others it doesn't.
>
> Other than someone on PPC there haven't been an
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 23:19:14 -0600
"Jamin W. Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 09:15:36PM -0700, Marc Wilson wrote:
> >
> > Direct printing works for some people, and for others it doesn't.
> > XPrint works for some people, and for others it doesn't.
Other than someone
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 20:52:37 -0400
Wayne Topa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am also running firefox 0.8 but it was installed with apt-get. I am
> stuck with Xprint with no postscript/default. :-(
Try it. Just run the Xprint daemon (/etc/init.d/xprint start?), find out
what display it's running o
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 09:15:36PM -0700, Marc Wilson wrote:
>
> Direct printing works for some people, and for others it doesn't.
> XPrint works for some people, and for others it doesn't. XPrint is
> *not* an arguably superior product, so why is that choice forced on
> people?
Direct print is
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 18:29:39 -0400
Travis Crump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It may
> be that you can't enable both direct printing and xprint at the same
> time,
No. That is not true. To run Xprint you start the Xprt daemon and
export XPRTSERVERLIST=":2" (or some alternative display not used).
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 10:39:08AM -0500, Alan Shutko wrote:
> Reid Priedhorsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 1. It was broken for some people.
> >
> > Fine, but Xprint is broken for me and now I can't print. I don't
> > think it's appropriate to remove a feature until its replacement is
> >
On Tuesday 06 July 2004 7:52 pm, Wayne Topa wrote:
> am also running firefox 0.8 but it was installed with apt-get. I am
> stuck with Xprint with no postscript/default. :-(
You could install the upstream version via their installer... it still uses
postscript/default. Be advised however that on
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 20:52:37 -0400
Wayne Topa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jacob S.([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said:
> > On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 18:29:39 -0400
> > Travis Crump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Brad Sims wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I am, I was told that mozilla no longer su
Jacob S.([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said:
> On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 18:29:39 -0400
> Travis Crump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Brad Sims wrote:
> > >
> > > I am, I was told that mozilla no longer supports direct printing,
> > > and the lack of postscript wasn't a bug and they closed m
Okay, who wants to fork the Mozilla family?
--
Carl Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jabootu's Minister of Proofreading
http://www.jabootu.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brad Sims <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am, I was told that mozilla no longer supports direct printing, and
> the lack of postscript wasn't a bug and they closed my bugreport.
Incidentally, it appears the upstream Linux builds still have direct PS
support.
--
Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 18:29:39 -0400
Travis Crump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brad Sims wrote:
> >
> > I am, I was told that mozilla no longer supports direct printing,
> > and the lack of postscript wasn't a bug and they closed my
> > bugreport.
> >
>
> Upstream still supports directs printing,
Brad Sims wrote:
On Tuesday 06 July 2004 2:32 am, Michael B Allen wrote:
What! The PostScript/default printing was pretty bad but I'm a little
surprised they dumped it entirely as it would require additional setup
to get xprint running. Are you sure?
I am, I was told that mozilla no longer support
On Tuesday 06 July 2004 2:32 am, Michael B Allen wrote:
> What! The PostScript/default printing was pretty bad but I'm a little
> surprised they dumped it entirely as it would require additional setup
> to get xprint running. Are you sure?
I am, I was told that mozilla no longer supports direct pr
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 09:40:12 +0200, Michael B Allen wrote:
>
> Reid Priedhorsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > 2. It had security problems.
> >
> > This brings me to my question: Does anyone have any solid references
> > on these security problems? Googling and searching the bug database
> >
Reid Priedhorsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1. It was broken for some people.
>
> Fine, but Xprint is broken for me and now I can't print. I don't
> think it's appropriate to remove a feature until its replacement is
> stable and useable by everyone who could use the old feature.
Personally,
On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 21:56:14 -0500
Reid Priedhorsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I have just discovered that the Mozilla and Firefox old-style printing
> option "PostScript/default" is gone. Apparently we are now supposed to use
> the Xprint printing stuff; unfortunately, Xprint is
Hello all,
I have just discovered that the Mozilla and Firefox old-style printing
option "PostScript/default" is gone. Apparently we are now supposed to use
the Xprint printing stuff; unfortunately, Xprint is broken for me in at
least two ways. Now I can't print.
Justification, as far as I can te
37 matches
Mail list logo
