On Tue, 2002-03-12 at 02:45, Buchan Milne wrote:
> The other issue with Mozilla, is that an upgrade normally breaks
> Nautilus. I think most would agree that messing with nautilus while
> we're in RC is not a good idea.
>
> Nevertheless, I will probably put together a mozilla rpm for myself, an
On Mon, Mar 11, 2002 at 09:51:44PM -0800, David Walser wrote:
> >From my read of the release announcement, RedHat's RPM
> uses zlib dynamically, so upgrading zlib not mozilla
> fixes it. If Mandrake's the same way, this isn't a
> security upgrade, *but* 0.98 had some critical bugs
> when it was r
On Tue, 2002-03-12 at 00:37, Frédéric Crozat wrote:
> Le Tue, 12 Mar 2002 05:37:14 +0100, Bryan Paxton a écrit :
> These bugs are OPEN !!! They are known ISSSUES !!
>
> Meaning, they are NOT fixed.. (not even on 1-0 branch..)
My other email obviously didn't get through, see the one in reply to
B
Le Tue, 12 Mar 2002 05:37:14 +0100, Bryan Paxton a écrit :
> http://mozilla.org/releases/mozilla0.9.9/
>
> It's xmas for me every time a mozilla release rolls out : )
>
> Anyway, to the point...
>
> In a freeze? Yes, but this is a critical update. This release aside from
> tuning and enablin
On Mon, 2002-03-11 at 22:41, Byron Poland wrote:
> fixes
> > SEVERAL bugs. The most important to any user:
> >
> > Linux: Flash may crash with exported X display. (Bug 58937)
> >
> > Linux: On Linux, there may be problems with ESD Audio and Flash. (Bugs
> > 85772)
>
> I think you mis-read the
>From my read of the release announcement, RedHat's RPM
uses zlib dynamically, so upgrading zlib not mozilla
fixes it. If Mandrake's the same way, this isn't a
security upgrade, *but* 0.98 had some critical bugs
when it was released and is pretty much useless so it
still makes a lot of sense to s
On Monday 11 March 2002 11:45 pm, you wrote:
> Actually, if I'm reading the release notes correctly, it also fixes
> Mozilla's zlib vulnerability.
I would think that the zlib vulnerability would be a "show-stopper",
especially given the relatively small effort to fix it and the publicity
surro
On 11 Mar 2002, Bryan Paxton wrote:
>
> http://mozilla.org/releases/mozilla0.9.9/
>
> It's xmas for me every time a mozilla release rolls out : )
>
> Anyway, to the point...
>
> In a freeze? Yes, but this is a critical update.
> This release aside from tuning and enabling some nice features,
On Mon, 2002-03-11 at 22:37, Bryan Paxton wrote:
> http://mozilla.org/releases/mozilla0.9.9/
>
> It's xmas for me every time a mozilla release rolls out : )
>
> Anyway, to the point...
>
> In a freeze? Yes, but this is a critical update.
> This release aside from tuning and enabling some nice
On Mon, 2002-03-11 at 22:37, Bryan Paxton wrote:
>
> http://mozilla.org/releases/mozilla0.9.9/
>
> It's xmas for me every time a mozilla release rolls out : )
>
> Anyway, to the point...
>
> In a freeze? Yes, but this is a critical update.
> This release aside from tuning and enabling some ni
fixes
> SEVERAL bugs. The most important to any user:
>
> Linux: Flash may crash with exported X display. (Bug 58937)
>
> Linux: On Linux, there may be problems with ESD Audio and Flash. (Bugs
> 85772)
I think you mis-read the rel-notes, those are known issues, that are
unresolved.. I check on
Neville Cobb wrote:
> Had the same problem
>
> I eventually changed it via the "view - Apply Theme - Modern".
> I could not change it under "Edit Preferences - Themes" as if I
> clicked on either modern or classic the only choice was "uninstall
> modern" or "uninstall classic" but neither selec
Had the same problem
I eventually changed it via the "view - Apply Theme - Modern".
I could not change it under "Edit Preferences - Themes" as if I clicked
on either modern or classic the only choice was "uninstall modern" or
"uninstall classic" but neither selection did anything.
Nev
Han wrote:
>Thierry Vignaud ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>>and is in cooker for quite a few hours :-)
>>
>
>And the only thing it does is segfault.
>
Works for me, but Modern theme is not working.
>
>
>Groetjes, Han.
>
On Fri, 08 Mar 2002 09:43:56 +0100, Neville Cobb wrote:
> I eventually changed it via the "view - Apply Theme - Modern". I could
> not change it under "Edit Preferences - Themes" as if I clicked on
> either modern or classic the only choice was "uninstall modern" or
> "uninstall classic" but neit
I eventually changed it via the "view - Apply Theme - Modern".
I could not change it under "Edit Preferences - Themes" as if I clicked
on either modern or classic the only choice was "uninstall modern" or
"uninstall classic" but neither selection did anything.
Nev
Frederic Crozat wrote:
>On F
On Fri, 08 Mar 2002 08:56:52 +0100, Neville Cobb wrote:
> can't change theme to modern in mozilla
No problem here and with such a small bug report, I can't fix anything..
--
Frédéric Crozat
MandrakeSoft
On Mon, 18 Feb 2002, Frederic Crozat wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 04:54:57 +0100, skidley wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, skidley wrote:
> >
> >> What's up with the latest mozilla? The PSM is not rolled in like other
> >> versions and there's no mozilla-psm. Yes I have installed the
> >> corr
On Mon, 2002-02-18 at 01:42, Frederic Crozat wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 04:54:57 +0100, skidley wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, skidley wrote:
> >
> >> What's up with the latest mozilla? The PSM is not rolled in like other
> >> versions and there's no mozilla-psm. Yes I have installed the
>
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 04:54:57 +0100, skidley wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, skidley wrote:
>
>> What's up with the latest mozilla? The PSM is not rolled in like other
>> versions and there's no mozilla-psm. Yes I have installed the
>> corresponding libnss3 and libnspr4 rpms.
>>
>>
> It seems for
On Fri, 2002-02-15 at 19:54, skidley wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, skidley wrote:
>
> > What's up with the latest mozilla? The PSM is not rolled in like other
> > versions and there's no mozilla-psm. Yes I have installed the
> > corresponding libnss3 and libnspr4 rpms.
> >
> >
> It seems for so
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, skidley wrote:
> What's up with the latest mozilla? The PSM is not rolled in like other
> versions and there's no mozilla-psm. Yes I have installed the
> corresponding libnss3 and libnspr4 rpms.
>
>
Never mind, must have been a ghost or something quirky it all of a
sudden w
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, skidley wrote:
> What's up with the latest mozilla? The PSM is not rolled in like other
> versions and there's no mozilla-psm. Yes I have installed the
> corresponding libnss3 and libnspr4 rpms.
>
>
It seems for some strange reason I get the "you must have PSM..."
in severa
On Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 06:56:23PM -0800, Ryan T. Sammartino wrote:
>
> Anyone know what's up with this... it's been happening for a while now:
The real problem was an old (-7mdk) urpmi... upgrading to the latest urpmi
solved the problem.
--
Ryan T. Sammartino
http://members.shaw.ca/ryants/
Q:
On Sunday 10 Feb 2002 02:56, Ryan T. Sammartino wrote:
> Anyone know what's up with this... it's been happening for a while now:
>
>
> $ sudo /usr/sbin/urpmi mozilla
> To satisfy dependencies, the following packages are going to be
> installed (40 MB):
> libnspr4-0.9.8-3mdk mozilla-irc-0.9.8-3mdk
On Fri, 2002-02-08 at 02:36, Frederic Crozat wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Feb 2002 11:26:39 +0100, Bryan Paxton wrote:
>
> In the mean time, run /usr/lib/mozilla/rebuild-databases.sh as root (it
> is always the same problem :((
>
That OK Fred, I really didn't want to give you so much stress, I mean
one
I am able to access (at least some) https pages
through galeon, and that is based on mozilla.
--- Bryan Paxton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-02-08 at 04:00, Frederic Crozat wrote:
>
> > > eh. mdk names it libnspr4, haven't a clue
> why it's not named
> > > mozilla-psm.
> >
> >
On Fri, 08 Feb 2002 11:26:39 +0100, Bryan Paxton wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-02-08 at 04:00, Frederic Crozat wrote:
>
>> > eh. mdk names it libnspr4, haven't a clue why it's not named
>> > mozilla-psm.
>>
>> You are mixing everything..
>>
>> libnspr4 is Netscape Portable library
>>
>> libnss3 i
On Fri, 2002-02-08 at 04:00, Frederic Crozat wrote:
> > eh. mdk names it libnspr4, haven't a clue why it's not named
> > mozilla-psm.
>
> You are mixing everything..
>
> libnspr4 is Netscape Portable library
>
> libnss3 is Netscape Secure Socket library (used for crypto).
>
> We used to p
On Fri, 08 Feb 2002 10:28:17 +0100, Quel Qun wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Mozilla and galeon refuse to access any secure http page, with the
> message:
>
> This document cannot be displayed unless you install the Personal
> Security Manager (PSM). Download and install PSM and try again.
>
> I cannot find
On Fri, 08 Feb 2002 11:02:13 +0100, Bryan Paxton wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-02-08 at 03:28, Quel Qun wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Mozilla and galeon refuse to access any secure http page, with the
>> message:
>>
>> This document cannot be displayed unless you install the Personal
>> Security Manager (PSM). D
On Fri, 2002-02-08 at 03:28, Quel Qun wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Mozilla and galeon refuse to access any secure http page, with the
> message:
>
> This document cannot be displayed unless you install the Personal
> Security Manager (PSM). Download and install PSM and try again.
>
> I cannot find psm anyw
On Wed, 2002-02-06 at 16:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Feb, at 03:05:44 -0600, Bryan Paxton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> done said:
> >
> > I forgot to mention one thing.
> > My Mozilla is not built against cooker's gtk and glib, it's built
> > against ximians.
> >
> > I would look there for
On Wed, 06 Feb, at 03:05:44 -0600, Bryan Paxton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> done said:
>
> I forgot to mention one thing.
> My Mozilla is not built against cooker's gtk and glib, it's built
> against ximians.
>
> I would look there for the problem...
It's mozilla. As soon as I saw 0.9.8 was available
Frederic Crozat wrote:
>On Wed, 06 Feb 2002 18:59:24 +0100, Tech At Mathco Dot Com wrote:
>
>>I just noticed that you have to be root to be able to install the Java
>>plugin.
>>
>>Is this really correct?
>>
>>I tried this a few times with a regular user and it shows unsuccessfull
>>each time.
>>
On Wed, 06 Feb 2002 19:26:01 +0100, Marcel Pol wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Feb 2002 18:23:24 +0100
> Frederic Crozat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >> >> And the only thing it does is segfault.
>> >> > Yup, the same here:
>> >> >
>> >> > bash-2.05$ /usr/lib/mozilla/mozilla-bin
>> >> >
On Wed, 06 Feb 2002 18:23:24 +0100
Frederic Crozat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> And the only thing it does is segfault.
> >> > Yup, the same here:
> >> >
> >> > bash-2.05$ /usr/lib/mozilla/mozilla-bin
> >> > **
> >> > nsNativeComponentLoader:
On Wed, 06 Feb 2002 18:59:24 +0100, Tech At Mathco Dot Com wrote:
> I just noticed that you have to be root to be able to install the Java
> plugin.
>
> Is this really correct?
>
> I tried this a few times with a regular user and it shows unsuccessfull
> each time.
Install jre package from sun
On Wed, 06 Feb 2002 18:12:08 +0100, Marcel Pol wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Feb 2002 14:20:52 +0100
> Frederic Crozat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >> And the only thing it does is segfault.
>> > Yup, the same here:
>> >
>> > bash-2.05$ /usr/lib/mozilla/mozilla-bin
>> > ***
On Wed, 06 Feb 2002 14:20:52 +0100
Frederic Crozat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> And the only thing it does is segfault.
> > Yup, the same here:
> >
> > bash-2.05$ /usr/lib/mozilla/mozilla-bin
> > **
> > nsNativeComponentLoader:
> > GetFactory(/u
On Wed, 06 Feb 2002 13:25:05 +0100, Marcel Pol wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2002 06:35:07 +0100
> Han <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Thierry Vignaud ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> > and is in cooker for quite a few hours :-)
>> And the only thing it does is segfault.
>
> Yup, the same here:
>
> bash
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002 06:35:07 +0100
Han <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thierry Vignaud ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > and is in cooker for quite a few hours :-)
> And the only thing it does is segfault.
Yup, the same here:
bash-2.05$ /usr/lib/mozilla/mozilla-bin
On Wed, 2002-02-06 at 04:33, Han wrote:
> Bryan Paxton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Wed, 2002-02-06 at 03:38, Han wrote:
> > > Bryan Paxton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2002-02-06 at 02:45, Michal Bukovjan wrote:
> > > > > I did not built it (using cooker RPMs) and works for me
Bryan Paxton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-02-06 at 03:38, Han wrote:
> > Bryan Paxton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2002-02-06 at 02:45, Michal Bukovjan wrote:
> > > > I did not built it (using cooker RPMs) and works for me fine as
> > > > well. Perhaps you are missing som
On Wed, 2002-02-06 at 03:38, Han wrote:
> Bryan Paxton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Wed, 2002-02-06 at 02:45, Michal Bukovjan wrote:
> > > I did not built it (using cooker RPMs) and works for me fine as
> > > well. Perhaps you are missing some correct libs?
> >
> > I forgot to mention one t
Bryan Paxton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-02-06 at 02:45, Michal Bukovjan wrote:
> > I did not built it (using cooker RPMs) and works for me fine as
> > well. Perhaps you are missing some correct libs?
>
> I forgot to mention one thing.
>
> My Mozilla is not built against cooker's g
On Tue, 2002-02-05 at 23:35, Han wrote:
> Thierry Vignaud ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > and is in cooker for quite a few hours :-)
>
> And the only thing it does is segfault.
>
>
>
> Groetjes, Han.
> --
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/software
>
Running smoothly over here...
NOTE: I built
Thierry Vignaud ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> and is in cooker for quite a few hours :-)
And the only thing it does is segfault.
Groetjes, Han.
--
http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/software
and is in cooker for quite a few hours :-)
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 10:43:28PM +0100, Thierry Andriamirado wrote:
> Salut Laurent,
>
> le mar 15-01-2002 à 21:08, Laurent CREPET a écrit :
>
> > Does anyone still have the latest cooker 0.96 packages ?
>
>
> Est-ce que quelqu'un t'a répondu en privé? je n'ai pas vu la réponse
> passer dans
Salut Laurent,
le mar 15-01-2002 à 21:08, Laurent CREPET a écrit :
> Does anyone still have the latest cooker 0.96 packages ?
Est-ce que quelqu'un t'a répondu en privé? je n'ai pas vu la réponse
passer dans la liste cooker. Sinon, si tu le retrouves quelque part,
pourrais-tu me dire où, stp? ç
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 10:10:09AM -0800, Mike Eheler wrote:
> This is mozilla 0.9.7 plain and simple. I don't know what they did, but
> they did a good job of making it more unstable.
>
> I've reverted to mozilla 0.9.6 on my own system and things are much
> better, this is not isolated to the
le mar 15-01-2002 à 18:11, Laurent CREPET a écrit :
> Since I have upgraded to mozilla-0.9.7-2mdk, I have a lot
> of crashes with our company intranet, yahoo sites (mail,
> groups) and others.
>
> Does anyone suffer from such a stability problem ?
>
> (0.96 was more stable)
>
> Laurent.
> --
>
th tarball & Red_Hat_7x_RPMS installs, as
0.9.7 was just very unstable.
Hopefully they'll get their act together for 0.9.8, because 1.0 is just
around the corner, and mozilla seems to be regressing in stability.
Mike
Laurent CREPET wrote:
>>Subject: Re: [Cooker] mozilla-
> Subject: Re: [Cooker] mozilla-0.9.7-2mdk - lot of ashes
-
was: crashes...
I've just got another crashes just after launching it.
Since my konqueror is very slow, I'm a little bit tired
with these browsers... Just thinking abo
On Wednesday 09 January 2002 2:14 pm, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> [Bug 115176] [or link text] is used as default filename when
> doing Save Page [or Save Link]
> http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=115176
>
> Does this fit to your observation?
Very nice, thanks
guran
--
Mandrake Linux 8.
So sprach »guran« am 2002-01-09 um 12:54:31 +0100 :
> I don't know if this is specific to Mdk but according to consistency it
> ought to be the other way around.
[Bug 115176] [or link text] is used as default filename when
doing Save Page [or Save Link]
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi
The problem site had done a test to see which browser I had then did a
sound on a mouseover, it just didn't do it for Mozilla. The place that
worked was nickjr.com which was using Flash. In my testing since then,
starting Mozilla inside of artsdsp (soundwrapper) made so that all the
plug-ins (Fl
On Sat, 15 Dec 2001 20:19:00 +0100, Lonnie Borntreger wrote:
> I had tried that and it didn't work. Turns out that I had tried to test
> it at a site that doesn't like Mozilla so none of the sounds were
> active. Went to another site, and it worked. Thanks.
This problem is caused by flash plu
I had tried that and it didn't work. Turns out that I had tried to test
it at a site that doesn't like Mozilla so none of the sounds were
active. Went to another site, and it worked. Thanks.
On Sat, 2001-12-15 at 12:05, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
Ainsi parlait Lonnie Borntreger :
> Is the
Ainsi parlait Lonnie Borntreger :
> Is there an arts plug-in for Mozilla? I can't get it to play sound
> through artsd.
Run it though soundwrapper:
soundwrapper mozilla
--
Guillaume Rousse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPG key http://lis.snv.jussieu.fr/~rousse/gpgkey.html
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 09:31:28AM +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Dec 2001 07:45:35 +0100, Stefan van der Eijk wrote:
> >>Hmmm, seems like an error in the mozilla spec. Funny, the 0.9.6-1mdk
> >>did not have these problems..
> >>
> > It seems that the mozilla package now is making the
On 06 Dec 2001 06:28:48 -0600
Lance Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2001-12-05 at 23:11, Ian C. Sison wrote:
>
> Yes, mozilla needs these two libraries. Grab them off cooker as well.
>
>
> Maybe you didn't notice that the versions required are both 0.9.6, which
> is nothing
Salane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> installing
> /home/Mandrake/cooker/i586/Mandrake/RPMS/mozilla-irc-0.9.6-3mdk.i586.rpm
> /home/Mandrake/cooker/i586/Mandrake/RPMS/mozilla-js-debugger-0.9.6-3mdk.i586.rpm
> /home/Mandrake/cooker/i586/Mandrake/RPMS/mozilla-mail-0.9.6-3mdk.i586.rpm
> /home/Man
On Wed, 2001-12-05 at 23:11, Ian C. Sison wrote:
Yes, mozilla needs these two libraries. Grab them off cooker as well.
Maybe you didn't notice that the versions required are both 0.9.6, which is nothing like their real versions (4.1.2 & 3.3.1). This seems like a package problem.
On Thu, 06 Dec 2001 07:45:35 +0100, Stefan van der Eijk wrote:
>>Hmmm, seems like an error in the mozilla spec. Funny, the 0.9.6-1mdk
>>did not have these problems..
>>
> It seems that the mozilla package now is making the libnspr4 and libnss3
> packages. Could it be that due to their lower ve
>
>
>Hmmm, seems like an error in the mozilla spec. Funny, the 0.9.6-1mdk did
>not have these problems..
>
It seems that the mozilla package now is making the libnspr4 and libnss3
packages. Could it be that due to their lower version number they didn't
get uploaded?
>>>Yes, mozilla needs these
Hmmm, seems like an error in the mozilla spec. Funny, the 0.9.6-1mdk did
not have these problems..
On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Stefan van der Eijk wrote:
> Ian C. Sison wrote:
>
> >Yes, mozilla needs these two libraries. Grab them off cooker as well.
> >
> Oh... they're available now (14:15 HKT)?
>
Ian C. Sison wrote:
>Yes, mozilla needs these two libraries. Grab them off cooker as well.
>
Oh... they're available now (14:15 HKT)?
[stefan@taz stefan]$ ls /mirrors/cooker/i586/Mandrake/RPMS/libns*
libnspr4-4.1.2-1mdk.i586.rpmlibnss3-3.3.1-1mdk.i586.rpm
libnspr4-devel-4.1.2-1mdk.i586.
Yes, mozilla needs these two libraries. Grab them off cooker as well.
On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, Salane wrote:
> installing
> /home/Mandrake/cooker/i586/Mandrake/RPMS/mozilla-irc-0.9.6-3mdk.i586.rpm
> /home/Mandrake/cooker/i586/Mandrake/RPMS/mozilla-js-debugger-0.9.6-3mdk.i586.rpm
> /home/Mandrake/c
So sprach »Frederic Crozat« am 2001-10-29 um 09:54:52 +0100 :
> Because I forgot to include it (and BTW, official RPMs don't include it
> either) :))
Uhm, well, to be honest, I don't know about the official RPMs - I
thought they would, because the Windows (yes, b me *G*) version
does.
Well,
On Sat, 2001-10-27 at 05:41, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> The official version of mozilla 0.9.5 includes a JavaScript debugger
> which can be activated by Tasks->JavaScript debugger.
It's there for me. Just make sure to install the libjs package (it's new
this time around)
--
Steve Fox
http://k-lu
Ainsi parlait Frederic Crozat :
> This is not mozilla, this is flash plugin which is statically linked with
> esd :((
Flash is *really* a plague :-(
> As a workaround, run it inside soundwrapper ..
Thanks for the tip.
--
Guillaume Rousse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPG key http://lis.snv.jussieu.fr/~rou
On Wed, 26 Sep 2001 23:03, you wrote:
> Le Mercredi 26 Septembre 2001 17:00, George Mitchell scribit :
> > Apparently when the Inbox file reaches a
> > certain size, Mozilla Mail has a problem finding the unread messages.
> purge it
> make sub directories
I have something more than 4000 messages
Steve wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 08:00:23AM -0700, George Mitchell wrote:
> > I have a customer who has been using Mozilla Mail for a number of months
> > now. A few weeks back, Mozilla Mail stopped displaying new incoming
> > messages. I had the customer update to the latest Mozilla pack
George Mitchell wrote:
> I have a customer who has been using Mozilla Mail for a number of months
> now. A few weeks back, Mozilla Mail stopped displaying new incoming
> messages. I had the customer update to the latest Mozilla package at
> the time and that fixed the problem. Now, again Mozill
On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 08:00:23AM -0700, George Mitchell wrote:
> I have a customer who has been using Mozilla Mail for a number of months
> now. A few weeks back, Mozilla Mail stopped displaying new incoming
> messages. I had the customer update to the latest Mozilla package at
> the time and
Le Mercredi 26 Septembre 2001 17:00, George Mitchell scribit :
> Apparently when the Inbox file reaches a
> certain size, Mozilla Mail has a problem finding the unread messages.
purge it
make sub directories
--
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/linux_wizard/index.html
-
J'aurais aime être publicitaire p
andre wrote:
>>So sprach andre am 2001-09-06 um 22:03:30 +0200 :
>>
>>>galeon and nautilus
>>>
>>>You are right. Nothing of importants:)
>>>
>>Yep. I don't use Nautilus :) Anyhow, KDE is a lot bigger than just
>>Galeon, Skipstone (okey, contrib) and Nautilus, don't you aggree?
>>
>>Alexander Sk
>
> uh oh. he is not paying attention to this thread apparently, so time
> for keywordification.
> fcrozat
> crozat
> frederic
> mozilla
> gnome
> crack
>
>
i would at pr0n. Seems to work beter
uh oh. he is not paying attention to this thread apparently, so time
for keywordification.
fcrozat
crozat
frederic
mozilla
gnome
crack
>
> So sprach andre am 2001-09-06 um 22:03:30 +0200 :
> > galeon and nautilus
> >
> > You are right. Nothing of importants:)
>
> Yep. I don't use Nautilus :) Anyhow, KDE is a lot bigger than just
> Galeon, Skipstone (okey, contrib) and Nautilus, don't you aggree?
>
> Alexander Skwar
>
KDE al
So sprach »andre« am 2001-09-06 um 22:03:30 +0200 :
> galeon and nautilus
>
> You are right. Nothing of importants:)
Yep. I don't use Nautilus :) Anyhow, KDE is a lot bigger than just
Galeon, Skipstone (okey, contrib) and Nautilus, don't you aggree?
Alexander Skwar
--
How to quote: http://
andre wrote:
> Op 06 Sep 2001 20:46:14 +0200, Alexander Skwar schreef:
>
>>So sprach »Andrej Borsenkow« am 2001-09-06 um 16:02:49 +0400 :
>>
>>>Agreed.
>>>
>>>Actually, I would like to see KDE 2.2.1 in 8.1 as well.
>>>
>>Well, to some degree I aggree. But then again - KDE is quite a *HUGE*
>>s
Op 06 Sep 2001 20:46:14 +0200, Alexander Skwar schreef:
> So sprach »Andrej Borsenkow« am 2001-09-06 um 16:02:49 +0400 :
> > Agreed.
> >
> > Actually, I would like to see KDE 2.2.1 in 8.1 as well.
>
> Well, to some degree I aggree. But then again - KDE is quite a *HUGE*
> suite of packages. m
So sprach »Andrej Borsenkow« am 2001-09-06 um 16:02:49 +0400 :
> Agreed.
>
> Actually, I would like to see KDE 2.2.1 in 8.1 as well.
Well, to some degree I aggree. But then again - KDE is quite a *HUGE*
suite of packages. mozilla on the other hand isn't quite so critical.
Not *THAT* much depe
e, personally, if I am
> going to bother with 8.1.
>
> Brian W. Masinick, "The Mas"
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Andrej Borsenkow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thur
lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Andrej Borsenkow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 8:02 AM
Subject: RE: [Cooker] Mozilla and the deadline
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I read in MCWN that
ED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Cooker] Mozilla and the deadline
> Grégoire Colbert wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I read in MCWN that there won't be any new version introduced in Cooker
> > before 8.1. I thi
> Hello,
>
> I read in MCWN that there won't be any new version introduced in
Cooker
> before 8.1. I think this is Good News.
>
> *However*, I know a program that would get much benefit from a "late"
> upgrade: Mozilla. Version 0.9.4 should be out *tomorrow* the 7th of
> September, according to
Grégoire Colbert wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I read in MCWN that there won't be any new version introduced in Cooker
> before 8.1. I think this is Good News.
>
> *However*, I know a program that would get much benefit from a "late"
> upgrade: Mozilla. Version 0.9.4 should be out *tomorrow* the 7th of
Dans l'article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Gary Lawrence Murphy"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> I just tried to upgrade Mozilla 0.9.1 to Mozilla 0.9.2 and urpmi
> reported ...
>
>To satisfy dependencies, the following packages are going to be
>installed (97 MB):
>
>mozilla-irc-0.9.2-5mdk
On 14 Jul 2001 15:30:55 +0200, Michael Reinsch wrote:
> Hi!
>
> When I update mozilla (this time to mozilla-0.9.2-6mdk.i586.rpm) I always
> get the following error messages:
>
>
>###
> [ 20%]
> /var/
Vicky Plaha wrote:
>Hi,
>Apart from all this, can mozilla sign in into hotmail
>yet? When u press the sign in button, it refuses to
>budge.
>
>Vkey
>--- Blue Lizard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>no offense mr. crozat but i'm kinda surprised i
>>havent seen it in cooker
>>yet...
>>btw some real
Hi,
Apart from all this, can mozilla sign in into hotmail
yet? When u press the sign in button, it refuses to
budge.
Vkey
--- Blue Lizard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> no offense mr. crozat but i'm kinda surprised i
> havent seen it in cooker
> yet...
> btw some real big progress has been made re
Dans l'article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"RA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> If you are installing Mozilla on a multi-user operating system such as
> Linux, Unix, or Windows 2000, you should install it separately in the
> user directory of each user who plans to use Mozilla. (Bug 42184) If
>
On Thursday 28 June 2001 13:52, you wrote:
> Dans l'article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
> "RA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> > Yes, I tried. Also removed some old/created files in /usr/lib/mozilla.
> > No success.
> > But I found that the files created by rebuild-databases.sh
> > (regchrom/regxpcom)
Dans l'article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"RA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
>
> Yes, I tried. Also removed some old/created files in /usr/lib/mozilla.
> No success.
> But I found that the files created by rebuild-databases.sh
> (regchrom/regxpcom) are not readable by users (because I set default
> uma
On Wednesday 27 June 2001 17:06, you wrote:
> Dans l'article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
> "RA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> > On Wednesday 27 June 2001 16:41, you wrote:
> >> Dans l'article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >>
> >> "RA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> >> > On Wednesday 27 June 2001 16:20, you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> > > > Have you tried to completely uninstall all mozilla package and re-install
> > > > them ?
> > >
> > > Are we using a MS or M$ product?
> >
> > Have I to remember you, that we are speaking of a prduct derived from
> > Netscape, one of the bloatedst and slow
301 - 400 of 489 matches
Mail list logo
