Hi,
Dominik Kubla wrote:
> Just to put things straight:
> * update was replaced by bdflush
> * bdflush is now obsolete because of the kflushd kernel process
I _was_ wrong in thinking update and bdflush had no source packages of
their own (thanks, Guy), but I'm pretty sure I'm not wrong in thin
Frank Neumann wrote:
> Now that the bdflush package has been replaced by update - shouldn't the
> binary-/base/bdflush*.deb files be removed for all architectures?
> Or are they still need for reasons I fail to see?
Just to put things straight:
* update was replaced by bdflush
* bdflush is now o
On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, Frank Neumann wrote:
> Now that the bdflush package has been replaced by update - shouldn't the
> binary-/base/bdflush*.deb files be removed for all architectures?
> Or are they still need for reasons I fail to see?
Yes, they should. Silly of me to forget considering I'm the
Hi,
Now that the bdflush package has been replaced by update - shouldn't the
binary-/base/bdflush*.deb files be removed for all architectures?
Or are they still need for reasons I fail to see?
Frank
(Remember there is no 'bdflush' source package, neither is there an 'update'
source package - th
4 matches
Mail list logo
