Re: Package which uses jam (instead make)
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 10:56:49PM +0200, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote: > Nevermind... I still have problems with `jam install`. I don't know how > to pass to it directory prefix. Sorry, if this does not help. What about the '-s' option? -- Misha signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: gpg-agent?
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 03:19:37PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > where can i find gpg-agent? is it packaged for debian? if not, then > i'll file an ITP unless someone has valid things to say against that. I believe, the only one is available in newpg package (not Debian), which, I think, is the next generation gnupg. :) -- Misha pgp9iVVMyJsey.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gpg-agent?
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 11:54:56AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote: > On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 09:19, martin f krafft wrote: > > where can i find gpg-agent? is it packaged for debian? if not, then > > i'll file an ITP unless someone has valid things to say against that. > > Have you looked at quintuple-agent? It's a completely different thing with somewhat similar functionality. But at the first sight, it's very suspicious... -- Misha pgp3ck6cPd2RH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Developers LDAP settings for email forwarding to multiple places
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 11:03:32PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > Is it possible to configure email forwading in https://db.debian.org/ > such that emails are sent to two addresses? > > I tried separating two addresses with a space and also with a comma, but > it didn't seem to work. I believe, the standard approach for LDAP is to have two attributes with the same name. Of course, it should be allowed by schema. -- Misha pgpLAz92NbCBU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: dispersive translation via DDTS
On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 09:01:55AM +0900, Tomohiro KUBOTA wrote: > However, I think the "official translator" should be able to be > changed easily, though I don't have concrete idea now. The best way would be to make it possible for the translation coordinator. -- Misha
Re: dpkg-sig support wanted?
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 04:50:02PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: > As I'm responsible for most of dpkg-sig's code (and planned to do some > more work in the next two months) I'd like to know if anyone cares about > using these binary signatures or if I can invest my time into something > that's a bit more satisfying (== non-Debian stuff). As the ftp-masters > and the dpkg maintainers seem to have no interest in the whole thing, > I'm beginning to doubt that it's sensible to work on dpkg-sig. I'd be very interested in the whole idea. -- Misha PS I'm not a DD signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Size matters. Debian binary package stats
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 08:23:56PM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote: > On 12/18/05, Steinar H. Gunderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 02:56:10PM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote: > > > Why would this be huge? > > > Why is it that hard to plugin another codec? > > > > You'd have to rewrite about every single tool in the world handling .debs, > > make up a transition plan and upgrade from that. Not to mention that you'd > > Why is the knowledge of how to decode a .deb distributed over so many tools? Probably, it's because there's no [C] library that would allow those tools to deal with .deb files. Hence everybody start writing the tool by creating one more parser for the .deb format. -- Misha signature.asc Description: Digital signature
