__ Reply Separator _
Subject: Re: Linux Kernel 1.3.47 Uploaded
Author: mitchell@[EMAIL PROTECTED]@MAILGW at DECPostmaster
Date:20/12/95 3:31 PM
On Tue, 19 Dec 1995, Simon Shapiro wrote:
2. I'd like to throw away the 387
On Wed, 20 Dec 1995, Simon Shapiro wrote:
2. I'd like to throw away the 387 emulation for the compiled kernel.
Anyone knows why I should keep it there? I do not believe it to be
necessary for the installation, but i have been wrong before.
The kernel will not boot on systems that don't
Chris Fearnley [EMAIL PROTECTED], in a magnificent manifestation of deity,
wrote:
'Michael Alan Dorman wrote:'
On Sun, 17 Dec 1995, Chris Fearnley wrote:
This is a preliminary release. It seems to work, but I'm disatisfied
with my handling of httpd configuration (basically there is none - you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Engel), in a magnificent manifestation of deity, wrote:
It could. There is already some support for it in the Makefiles. I
chose to leave it for the eventual maintainer to add since it has
packaging and support ramifications. BTW, I did the same for libg++.
Who's going
Michael E. Deisher [EMAIL PROTECTED], in a magnificent manifestation of
deity, wrote:
Package: perl (elf-perl, actually)
Version: 5.001
Revision: 5
Perl contains a working crypt function and thus cannot be legally
exported from the US (someone correct me if I'm wrong). Probably, the
crypt
Austin Donnelly [EMAIL PROTECTED], in a magnificent manifestation of deity,
wrote:
Package: perl
Version: 5.001-4
Perl should suggest kernel sources, rather than grumble in postinst
later.
fixed.
Darren
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.daft.com/~torin/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Good morning Ian!
}Martin Schulze writes (Where are the bugs?):
} I'm missing bugs. In fact on ftp.debian.org /debian/debian-bugs/text
} only bugreports up to #1810 do exist. Where are newer ones?
}
}We're working on it. The US bugs mirror is broken atm - use the UK
}site instead.
No problem,
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
Personally, I also think we'll be better off if we bite the bullet and
try to maintain as much backwards compatability as we can with current
package naming usage than if we fall into a pattern of blowing off
backwards compatability issues in the interest of implementor convenience.
What
These packages fix nasty bugs with regard to upgrading.
IMPORTANT:
1. prior to upgrading, remove the prerm scripts from the
previous versions as follows:
rm -f /var/lib/dpkg/info/lib{db1,gdbm1,readline2}.prerm
2. libgdbm1 breaks older perl and man packages, due to a soname error in
a
It could. There is already some support for it in the Makefiles. I
chose to leave it for the eventual maintainer to add since it has
packaging and support ramifications. BTW, I did the same for libg++.
Who's going to be the maintainer? I'd want to talk with them some about
it.
Siggy
These packages fix nasty bugs with regard to upgrading; some other (minor)
problems are fixed.
IMPORTANT:
1. prior to upgrading, remove the prerm scripts from the
previous versions as follows:
rm -f /var/lib/dpkg/info/lib{db1,gdbm1,readline2}.prerm
2. libgdbm1 breaks older perl and man
On Tue, 19 Dec 1995, Bruce Perens wrote:
[...]
What programs are we talking about being compatible with? Not dselect or
dpkg, which don't care about the filename. I'd hazard that dchanges would
be easy to fix. Dftp would ask for the feature, as would the dselect
FTP method.
Am I missing
Package: mirror
Version: 2.8
Revision: 0
I'm sending this as a debian problem report and to the mirror list.
The first, and less important issue is that due to a typo in the mirror.pl
file, mirror stores temporary files in / when using associative arrays to
store information about local and
Fernando Alegre [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[...] the whole sunsite and tsx archives, which
store packages with an almost standard format. Even though they are not
Debian packages right now, some (many?) could be in the future. And the
debianized name should be as close to the upstream name
I was thinking about the parsing problem and I had a new idea, which I
think would be the best solution.
What I think is needed is a reorganization of the Debian tree so that
under the root tree for the distribution we have:
(root-tree)/Section/Standard Package name/files(binaries and sources)
A mostly-compatable compromise would seem to be:
[...]
Extension: May contain any printable chars.
If the extension can contain dashes, once again it could cause parsing
problems. Eliminating dashes (or dots, for that matter) here would
again make it fit into a regular expression.
Darren == Darren/Torin/Who Ever [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Darren [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Engel), in a magnificent manifestation of
deity, wrote:
It could. There is already some support for it in the
Makefiles. I chose to leave it for the eventual maintainer to
add since
brian (b.c.) white [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
If the extension can contain dashes, once again it could cause parsing
problems. Eliminating dashes (or dots, for that matter) here would
again make it fit into a regular expression.
Yup. Thanks for pointing that out. EXT should disallow dashes.
Yup. Thanks for pointing that out. EXT should disallow dashes.
The following seems to (slowly) parse all packages in a fairly old
available file which I have handy as is apparently intended by the
debian package maintainer, with the exception of
elisp-manual-19-2.4-1.tar.gz (is -19
Thanks for the patches. I'd already fixed up the big_tmp ones, I'd
missed the unlink_dbm problem.
I'll make sure they go into verion 2.0
--
--
Lee McLoughlin. Phone: +44 171 594 8388
Dept of Computing, Imperial College, Fax: +44 171 584 8301
180 Queens Gate,
Having obtained the source for gmp-1.2.3 I have been able to create the
required diff file. All files have now been uploaded to
ftp.debian.org/debian/private/project/Incoming and are complete.
Here is the .changes file:
Date: 20 Dec 95 22:08 UT
Source: gmp
Binary: gmp
Version: 1.3.2-2
Since I don't really have anything invested in this debate, I'll
throw in my last two cents and shut up. It seems to me that
changing the very few packages which don't already conform to such
a naming scheme would be much less disruptive than renaming every
package.
Also, a cheap
Is there any point in establishing an init runlevel for undocked
operation - that is, using a laptop away from AC power? Some
laptops are capable of sensing when they go on and off of AC and
could change the run level on their own. I can think of situations
where you would want
You (Raul Miller) wrote:
Is there any point in establishing an init runlevel for undocked
operation - that is, using a laptop away from AC power? Some
laptops are capable of sensing when they go on and off of AC and
could change the run level on their own. I can think of
Someone (David?) said:
It seems to me that
changing the very few packages which don't already conform to such
a naming scheme would be much less disruptive than renaming every
package.
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Also, a cheap workaround for any existing dependency problems would be
26 matches
Mail list logo
