On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 08:20:48AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 09:59:20AM -0500, Alex Yukhimets wrote:
> > _please_ don't do it. It will be utterely confusing to find everything in a
> > new place. As a person who does X development writing -I/usr/X11R6/include
> > is an
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Philippe Troin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jose Marin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Incidentally, why isn't there a script "umount-nfs" separated from
>> "umountfs"???
>
>That's something I've been pondering about. It's a good idea. Maybe a
>wishlist bug ? :-)
You
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 12:50:22PM +0200, Ari Makela wrote:
>
> The point might be that Slink can be updated to use 2.2 kernels and
> other sofware which are not included. After all, quality software
> compiles usually quite effortlessy with ./configure, make and make
> install.
>
> All said, as
Just a short notice:
It is not possible to mount a newer ext2 filesystem with the slink
kernel-image.
Tamas
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 09:59:20AM -0500, Alex Yukhimets wrote:
> _please_ don't do it. It will be utterely confusing to find everything in a
> new place. As a person who does X development writing -I/usr/X11R6/include
> is an idiom. So as for many people. /usr itself is cluttered more then enough.
Richard Braakman wrote:
> Package: balsa (debian/main).
> Maintainer: Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 58662 balsa: It doesn't work.
I have analyzed the "balsa does not run" problem. It turned out
that it run well after I removed the ~/.balsarc file. Thus this
bug is "only" a configuration iss
"Moore, Paul" wrote:
> I disagree. The approach taken by slink was sensible. Have 2.0 as the base,
> because it was QA'd to the high standards required by Debian, but include
> the latest 2.2 source package for people willing to upgrade. Adding a bit
> more support, in the form of including the equ
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 08:10:07PM -0500, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 08:32:07PM -0400, Nicolás Lichtmaier was heard to say:
> > > > Trouble ahead?
> > > Please run "apt-get install apt" before doing the dist-upgrade. Old apt
> > > don't manage well the perl transition. This wil
I'm tired of dealing with this installer package.
--
see shy jo
> "Joseph" == Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joseph> Only 6000? We must be getting lazy. 6000 is way too
Joseph> easy. Better try for 8000.
Now one ever thought the Dow would break 10k: took 'em 10yrs to get
from 3k to there. I'm sure we can do it in 2yrs (which is about
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 08:50:59PM +0100, Christian Surchi wrote:
> I'm using leafnode 1.6.2-3 in slink 2.1r5.
> It segfaults in many unpredictable cases.
> ...or often during the connection to a server. I can't repeat this problem
> and I don't know why. Does anybody have this problem or know abo
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 11:14:55AM +0100, Richard Braakman wrote:
>
> Package: dpkg (debian/main).
> Maintainer: Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 58091 package name "Eterm" --> "eterm"
In the meanwhile, this bug should be renamed to something like
"dpkg has problems with non-lowercase pac
> On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 11:44:39PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Why is it bad having a stable kernel installed as default,
> > and a 2.4-pre kernel, marked as extra, with warning in the long
> > description, also in the distribution?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marcus Brinkmann) added:
Moin,
to all those people, who wanted to package GLE. I got this from somebody,
who was looking for a win version, GLE has been ported (and extended):
http://www.uark.edu/misc/vlabella/gle/gle.html
I also received an email address of Axel, who ported the original gle to
OS/2 and made the 32-bit D
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 09:59:20AM -0500, Alex Yukhimets wrote:
> Commercical packages I use assume
> existence of /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/app-defaults (not to mention
> /usr/X11R6/include and /usr/X11R6/lib).
Sorry, dude, upstream already kicked over the table on that one.
It is now /etc/X11/app-defa
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 07:33:14AM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> You know Tomasz, it would help if you had the slightest clue what you
> wrote about BEFORE you started claiming to have the solution. Had you
> bothered to read the developer documentation you might have tried this:
Forget everythin
Paul M Sargent wrote:
>
> On a side note. I'm really not sure that this 'release' stuff works on
> debian. Coordinating the development cycles of an infinite number of
> packages is impossible. What I would like to see is an unstable tree where
> all development is done. As packages reach maturity
Steve Greenland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Which is it? Do your friends want the newest bleeding edge stuff, or
> do they want stability? They can't have both at the same time! Oh, I
> see, the want the newest, but they want us to call it "stable".
I don't know.. IMO unstable is often more stab
> On 12-Mar-00, 10:56 (CST), Ron Farrer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I disagree! (surprise ;) I personally know of about ~4 people who were
> > turned away from slink because GNOME and KDE were so OLD. I personally
> > got around this by running potato (unstable then), but most people don't
> >
Just to interject a point of view from someone who is running the
"newest available hardware", I have an Athlon with a LeadTek GeForce DDR
video card, IBM 13.5gb S.M.A.R.T. drives, and sensors on all vital systems
(temps, rpms, and voltages). Potato is rock solid on the system - indeed,
potato and
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 02:22:10AM +, Edward Betts wrote:
> > I thought the plan was to drop support for ISA VGA cards in 4.x, so people
> > who want to keep using old hardware HAVE to stick with 3.3.x
>
> If so, that's news to me and I've been fol
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 04:13:40PM +0100, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> > > And you will see why. ( tip : typo )
> >
> > That is most certainly _NOT_ a typo.
>
> Oki.
> Here is more detailed report
[.. crap snipped ..]
You know Tomasz, it would help if you had the slightest clue what you
wrote ab
From: Joey Hess [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I'd like to propose that we make a committment to getting an update to
> potato out within a month of the release of the 2.4 kernel or
> the release of potato, whichever comes last. (I did a similar thing for
> slink in a 3 week time-frame, and so I thi
> > We should be making potato the best that it
> > can be. Every release cycle, peoples obsession with "this new thing" or
> > "that latest beta" is what makes the cycle so drawn out.
>
> All I was saying was that 'that new thing' should be included in the
> unstable tree as soon as possible. Ad
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 03:04:26PM +, Paul M Sargent wrote:
> > > If the kernel isn't even in the archive then potential problems aren't
> > > going to be found.
> >
> > I wouldn't put that much `weight' in the fact that kernel is in the archive:
> > kernel packages don't get upgraded to new u
From: Ron Farrer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Slink is called `stable' for a reason. It's not obsolete
> > for people who just want a stable distribution.
> >
> > Of course, it is obsolete for people who want a nice GNOME
> > (or especially KDE) environment, or those who own Athlons or other
>
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 03:30:53PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 01:43:46PM +, Paul M Sargent wrote:
> >
> > ...but a distribution is designed for a particular kernel. e.g. slink is
> > designed for 2.0.x with some packages for 2.2.x support.
>
> But slink is practicall
Joey,
I can't take credit for the idea, it's been mentioned on -devel at least 5 times
in the past since slink was released. I'd avoid doing a "semi-stable" though.
But what we do is make Woody a, "Potato with the following updates". Call it a
point release seperate from the normal unstable. Bas
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 10:47:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > You are going to keep /usr/X11R6 for this release right? I guess that the
> > XFree86 people might get a bit irritated if you tried to drop it.
>
> Actually, I've evilly been toying with the idea of #defining ProjectRoot to
> /u
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 09:08:43AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> >
> > Woody should be running 2.3 or pre-2.4. That should have been among the
> > first
> > things to change.
> >
>
> We are knee deep in a release cycle. We should not be expending our
> resources on woody right now.
Ohh, Agreed.
From: Jacob Kuntz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> our biggest handicap is that we're always a year behind everyone
> else. being a year behind is suicide in any industry. being a year behind
> in an industry that moves as fast as open source software, is idiocy.
Agreed. With hardware changing as r
Do you remember GNOME 0.30? I do because it was in stable after 1.0 was
released. What would YOU call the more stable version? Just because something
makes it into stable doesn't mean it's really a fully stable package. And just
because something is NEWER doesn't mean it's not stable, or even "
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 08:29:52AM +, Vincent Renardias wrote:
> I already uploaded it for woody/. If I get zero complaints about it, I may
> consider uploading it for frozen... (So please test 21.3-1 in woody and
> tell me if anything is wrong ;)
Where on earth is it? I cannot find it in wood
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 01:43:07PM +0100, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> > Package: mp3blaster (debian/main).
> > Maintainer: Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 59564 mp3blaster: fails to build, C++ error
>
> This is *really*, *really* trivial to fix
>
> Try :
> tar tzf *.orig.tar.gz|head -1
>
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 01:43:46PM +, Paul M Sargent wrote:
> > > Woody should be running 2.3 or pre-2.4. That should have been among the
> > > first things to change.
> >
> > There's a misunderstanding here: the distribution has no default kernel,
> > the boot floppies do. Since nobody is wor
This is a message for debian-mentors mailing list, please use that one.
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 12:07:07PM +0100, SOETE Joël wrote:
> In this last directory I try to launch dpkg --build ... which failled
> because it did not find DEBIAN/control file (which stand in debian/control)
You can't buil
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 10:18:15PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> Besides, if we are to have woody have 6000 packages and send dpkg sobbing
> into a corner [not to mention those people with less than 64M of ram], we
> better think big!
Only 6000? We must be getting lazy. 6000 is way too easy.
>
> Woody should be running 2.3 or pre-2.4. That should have been among the first
> things to change.
>
We are knee deep in a release cycle. We should not be expending our
resources on woody right now. We should be making potato the best that it
can be. Every release cycle, peoples obsession wit
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 11:14:55AM +0100, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Package: xlife (debian/main).
> Maintainer: Edward Betts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 59383 xlife: can't build
Not actual.
Maintainer closed 3 such bugs at once,
but one more arrived before mirrors got updated.
>From changelog :
xli
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 02:50:12PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 11:50:47AM +, Paul M Sargent wrote:
> > Woody should be running 2.3 or pre-2.4. That should have been among the
> > first things to change.
>
> There's a misunderstanding here: the distribution has no defaul
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 11:50:47AM +, Paul M Sargent wrote:
> Woody should be running 2.3 or pre-2.4. That should have been among the
> first things to change.
There's a misunderstanding here: the distribution has no default kernel,
the boot floppies do. Since nobody is working on woody boot f
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 01:54:04PM +0100, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 11:14:55AM +0100, Richard Braakman wrote:
>
> > Package: fortify (non-US/non-free).
> > Maintainer: Roberto Lumbreras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 60162 fortify: Does the index file / database need to be up
Paul M Sargent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> OK, Here's a question then. If Woody is unstable, which kernel is it
> running?
> Woody should be running 2.3 or pre-2.4. That should have been among the first
> things to change.
I don't think so. People who are interested in debugging the kernel
can instal
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 01:54:04PM +0100, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 11:14:55AM +0100, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > Package: fortify (non-US/non-free).
> > Maintainer: Roberto Lumbreras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 60162 fortify: Does the index file / database need to be updat
> "Massimo" == Massimo Dal Zotto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Massimo> having a free day and a spare harddisk today I tried to install a
frozen
Massimo> potato. I installed via nfs from a mirror of ftp.debian.org on a
local server
Massimo> done yesterday. I found a number of probe
>I'd like to propose that we make a committment to
>getting an update to
>potato out within a month of the release of the 2.4
>kernel or the
>release
>of potato, whichever comes last. (I did a similar
>thing for slink in a
>3
>week time-frame, and so I think this is a reasonable
>time-frame.)
>
>
Jose Marin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am running several boxes with unstable(woody), and the sutdown process
> on some of them hangs near the end. They are all NFS clients to other
> Linux and Solaris machines. The ones that hang do it when trying to
> access NFS (I think trying to umount t
Dear all,
I run Debian 2.1r4 on a PC with an amd486 120 MHz and 16Mb of ram.
I also recompile last release of Ckermit. To manage installed software, I
would like make a package with this soft.
I found also package sources (.dsc, orig.tar.gz and diff.gz files) of a
previous release (It is always e
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Paul Slootman wrote:
> Also, when upgrading mime-support, it always offers to replace the
> conffile /etc/mailcap, which is NEVER a smart thing to do. Maybe
> /etc/mailcap should be one of the base files, and not part of
> mime-support?
This is Bug #34294, which I reported m
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 08:30:08PM -0400, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
> I think we have a problem here. The DFSG clearly does not apply to
> documentation, just like the GPL. As the FSF created a new license, we need
> to create guidelines to what we consider a "free documentation", as in free
> spe
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 11:14:55AM +0100, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Package: fortify (non-US/non-free).
> Maintainer: Roberto Lumbreras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 60162 fortify: Does the index file / database need to be updated? Is there
> a new upstream?
Is this really RC ?
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 05:57:32PM -0500, Ajit Krishnan wrote:
> hi,
>
> man segfaults when formatting tr. I've tried to include all relevant
> information below. I'm sorry if this is a known bug. I'm running woody
> updated late last night from the .us mirror. Cheers,
>
> bash-2.04$ man tr
> Ref
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 11:14:55AM +0100, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Package: mp3blaster (debian/main).
> Maintainer: Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 59564 mp3blaster: fails to build, C++ error
This is *really*, *really* trivial to fix
Try :
tar tzf *.orig.tar.gz|head -1
zcat *.diff.gz|head
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 09:53:41PM -, Steve Greenland wrote:
> Which is it? Do your friends want the newest bleeding edge stuff, or
> do they want stability? They can't have both at the same time! Oh, I
> see, the want the newest, but they want us to call it "stable".
OK, Here's a question th
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 10:47:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > You are going to keep /usr/X11R6 for this release right? I guess that the
> > XFree86 people might get a bit irritated if you tried to drop it.
>
> Actually, I've evilly been toying with the idea of #defining ProjectRoot to
> /u
Hi all,
[I sent this to debian-user, but got no replies]
I am running several boxes with unstable(woody), and the sutdown process
on some of them hangs near the end. They are all NFS clients to other
Linux and Solaris machines. The ones that hang do it when trying to
access NFS (I think trying
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 12:42:54AM -0500, Daniel Martin wrote:
>Speaking of which, where did netdate go? I've been wondering for a
>while what happened to it.
rdate may do what you are after.
Regards,
--
Brendan O'Deabod@compusol.com.au
Compusol Pty. Limi
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> It is a quality of imlementation issue. If we are seriously
> outmoded, we can't honestly say we are trying to be the best
> distribution out there.
I must say I completely fail to understand your point. Quality has not
very much to do with the fact how new t
Bonjour,
Actuellement, je ne peux installer la machine virtuelle "JAVA" de IBM, elle
ne fonctionne pas en mode natif, il faut absolument le kernel 2.2 et la
libc2.1 et non la 2.0-7 actuelle. J'aimerais savoir a peu pres la date de sa
sortie pour planifier mon developpement, il me semble que la libc
On Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 08:02:35PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Unable to update to latest stable release -- typescript
> > of failure attached.
> I remember seing this at the slink release. What is the proposed
> action now?
Just as a general note, I've now been able to get emacs to i
Hello,
Nice to hear about the future 4.0 plan. i agree with most of what you propose.
I have a question conerning the 3D stuff.
Glx will be included in XF 4.0, but this is a point that will most assuredly
confuse lots of people.
In fact, (if i understood this issue correctly, which i am still
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have set a new "Bug horizon" two weeks from now (March 27th). The
> same rules apply. The list of bugs involved is appended to this mail.
No it wasn't!
At least not in my incarnation of the mail.
--
Being digested is a painfully slow process.
On Sun 12 Mar 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Ha ha ha ha. "Just X servers"? You haven't been reading the news. :)
>
> There is only one server binary in XFree86 4.0.
>
> The "huge reorganizations" are almost all going to revolve around that X
> server binary, too.
>
> There are exactly ONE
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 12:42:54AM -0500, Daniel Martin wrote:
> Speaking of which, where did netdate go? I've been wondering for a
> while what happened to it.
It didn't actually have a license.
License problems: namely, there isn't one, and it's not clearly public
domain, and nobody knows who the author is.
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Daniel Martin wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Why doesn't netstd depend: on all the packages it previously included?
> >
On Sat 11 Mar 2000, Philippe Troin wrote:
>
> - I had a few seemingly inoffensive warnings about a missing
> /etc/mailcap.
I've noticed this for some time as well. Isn't the result that those
packages that are installed before mime-support aren't registered in
/etc/mailcap? If so, perhaps
On Sunday 12 March 2000, at 20 h 59, the keyboard of
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Nicol=E1s_Lichtmaier?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We are all using potato, but we are shipping slink, keep that in mind.
This is *wrong* as is wrong the claim that "slink is useless". The vast
majority of the machines I mana
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 10:40:36PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> There are exactly ONE HUNDRED server modules built by the stock 4.0 source
> tree.
>
> No, I don't know yet what exactly I'm going to do about that.
If I got "Driver Status" document right, perhaps you could divide them per
manuf
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 09:39:52AM +1100, Drake Diedrich wrote:
> New hardware support seems to be a reasonable justification for allowing
> new versions into stable/frozen if there is also an older version there
> for the rest of us to fall back on in case it's a lemon.
This would be valid, howev
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 12:07:11PM +0100, Christian Hammers wrote:
> Hello
>
> > Package: fetchmailconf (debian/main)
> > Maintainer: Paul Haggart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > [REMOVE] This package can be removed if it is not fixed.
> > 57287 generates wrong config files
> Hello!
>
> I fixed that
On 10 Mar 2000, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
> According to lwn.net, there is a new version of LILO just released
> that finally, finally adds an option to fix the horrid, dreaded
> LI problem on hard drives with >1024 cylinders.
>
> http://www.lwn.net/2000/0309/a/lilo.html
>
> Can this make it into p
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Why doesn't netstd depend: on all the packages it previously included?
> When upgrading to potato, tftpd functionality is lost because the new
> netstd only suggests it. And the parameters to tftpd have changed
> and the new package does not up
I'm trying to bring up another Mailman server, with Roxen as the web
server. This is freshly built today from potato. When I try to connect
to the mailman admindb interface, I get "Error decoding authorization cookie."
on the login screen, and every time I try to do any action, it throws
me back to
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 08:00:27PM -0500, Fabien Ninoles wrote:
|Stormix make great efforts to make their distributions fully
|compatible with Debian. This should be applaused, especially
|in regards to the mess that some other vendors made. I hope
|to try it in a week or two.
Two days ago I intro
On Sun, 12 Mar 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
> I hope you weren't even considering one package per module? I understand
> (from IRC) that the 100 modules weigh in at 12 mb. The typical xserver-*
Why not? Nobody else seems to have a problem with creating bazillions of
itty bitty packages for some incomp
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 08:59:30PM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
> We are all using potato, but we are shipping slink, keep that in mind.
last year we were...but now i would bet that half of us (or more) are
running woody, not potato.
imo, that says a lot about the quality of debian "unstable
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 03:53:41PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 12-Mar-00, 10:56 (CST), Ron Farrer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I disagree! (surprise ;) I personally know of about ~4 people who
> > were turned away from slink because GNOME and KDE were so OLD. I
> > personally got around t
Will Barton wrote:
> I like the idea a lot, but I have a question about version numbers. Potato
> is
> 2.2, so would you call 2.2.1? I'm assuming it would be more than just 2.2r2,
> etc.
Yes, that makes sense to me.
> It would be better to have these included in another release with our
> bl
Ben Collins wrote:
> > - X 4.0 drivers (but probably just X servers, to minimize changes; Branden
> > has huge reorganizations in mind for X)
>
> I'll agree with everything but this. X 4.0 stands to push aside support
> for some of our architectures.
My idea was just to include the driver packa
Branden Robinson wrote:
> There are exactly ONE HUNDRED server modules built by the stock 4.0 source
> tree.
>
> No, I don't know yet what exactly I'm going to do about that.
I hope you weren't even considering one package per module? I understand
(from IRC) that the 100 modules weigh in at 12 mb
> This update would NOT be blessed as stable, it would be a semi-stable
> release with:
>
> - 2.4 kernel and support utilities
> - X 4.0 drivers (but probably just X servers, to minimize changes; Branden
> has huge reorganizations in mind for X)
>
> This would be a full Debian release, with a v
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 02:22:10AM +, Edward Betts wrote:
> I thought the plan was to drop support for ISA VGA cards in 4.x, so people
> who want to keep using old hardware HAVE to stick with 3.3.x
If so, that's news to me and I've been following the XFree86 developers'
list for months. Suppo
> - X 4.0 drivers (but probably just X servers, to minimize changes; Branden
> has huge reorganizations in mind for X)
I'll agree with everything but this. X 4.0 stands to push aside support
for some of our architectures. Atleast from what I have read, m68k and
sparc will not be supported under
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 06:18:25PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
[...]
> - X 4.0 drivers (but probably just X servers, to minimize changes; Branden
> has huge reorganizations in mind for X)
Ha ha ha ha. "Just X servers"? You haven't been reading the news. :)
There is only one server binary in XFre
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 07:06:19PM -0800, Alex Romosan wrote:
> the problem is with curses.h in libncurses5-dev. it redefines ERR and
> as such it conflicts with the definition from the glibc headers. this
> was the same problem noticed in dpkg 1.6.10. i just commented out the
> redefinition of ERR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 01:16:55PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [snip]
> > [1] The makedepend program gets stuck in an infinite loop when attempting
> > to generate dependencies in xc/programs/xterm. One of Tom Dickey's
> > patches, #130 or #131, is probably the c
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 06:18:25PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> I'd like to propose that we make a committment to getting an update to
> potato out within a month of the release of the 2.4 kernel or the release
> of potato, whichever comes last. (I did a similar thing for slink in a 3
> week time-fram
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, in case it was unclear in my previous mail, I have no plans to
> support full versions of XFree86 3.3.x and 4.x in the same Debian release.
> By the time official 4.0 .debs are ready, it is my hope that the legacy
> chipsets currently only support
David Bristel wrote:
> The solution to this is that we ignore woody for the moment, and begin an all
> out effort to get the 2.4 kernel, XF4.0, and Apache 2.0 into Debian as STABLE.
> The work for these things can also incorporate the work needed to re-add the
> packages that were removed because o
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 07:17:47PM -0800, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> According to Christian Hammers:
> > According to the automated report:
> > > Package: nfs-kernel-server (debian/main)
> > > Maintainer: Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > 59641 nfs-kernel-server: conflicts with Standard pa
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 01:16:55PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
[snip]
> [1] The makedepend program gets stuck in an infinite loop when attempting
> to generate dependencies in xc/programs/xterm. One of Tom Dickey's
> patches, #130 or #131, is probably the culprit since I think these are the
>
On Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 07:52:40AM -0800, Kenneth Scharf wrote:
> Just take my comments as a wish list for the future, I
> know this stuff is still alpha grade (but still very
> usefull). Nice thing about debian is that it not only
> has a bullet resistant package manager (not bullet
> proof as pe
Alisdair McDiarmid ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> What's the point in providing a briefly tested package of 2.4.0 when,
> by the time potato is out and burnt onto CDs, 2.4.x (where x > 0) will
> be available and people can compile their own kernel?
>
> The only reason for putting a 2.4.x kernel i
Steve Greenland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> Let's see, we're going to release potato (I *hope*) before kernel 2.4.0
> is released, but we're outdated. Hmmm. Somehow, I just don't get it.
>
what that means is that we've almost totally missed the 2.2 kernel. we're an
entire release cycle behind
> Which is it? Do your friends want the newest bleeding edge stuff, or
> do they want stability? They can't have both at the same time! Oh, I
> see, the want the newest, but they want us to call it "stable".
>
> Sigh.
>
> Why is is this basic distinction so hard to explain to people? Testing
> an
95 matches
Mail list logo
