Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 09:37:16PM +0100, Otto Wyss wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:45:32AM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 07:55:03PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > What not rename linux-kernel-head
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:45:24PM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 09:37:16PM +0100, Otto Wyss wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:45:32AM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 07:55:03PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > What not rena
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 02:18:16PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 07:55:03PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > What not rename linux-kernel-headers to simple system-headers-linux?
> > This will prevent confused users (or: lazy to read the description users)
> > from asking
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 09:37:16PM +0100, Otto Wyss wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:45:32AM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 07:55:03PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > >
> > > > What not rename linux-kernel-headers to simple system-headers-linux?
> > > > This will
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> And then, which package does provide /usr/src/linux directory?
none should.
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:45:32AM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 07:55:03PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> >
> > > What not rename linux-kernel-headers to simple system-headers-linux?
> > > This will prevent confused users (or: lazy to read the description users)
> >
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:45:32AM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 07:55:03PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
>
> > What not rename linux-kernel-headers to simple system-headers-linux?
> > This will prevent confused users (or: lazy to read the description users)
> > fro
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 07:55:03PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> What not rename linux-kernel-headers to simple system-headers-linux?
> This will prevent confused users (or: lazy to read the description users)
> from asking this again and again.
system-headers-linux is a bit vague and without kn
#include
* GOTO Masanori [Fri, Nov 07 2003, 01:43:15PM]:
> > Sorry, users will still ask. They always ask. Users still think that
> > updating /usr/include/linux to point to /usr/src/linux/include/linux is the
> > right thing to do.
>
> And then, which package does provide /usr/src/linux direc
At Thu, 6 Nov 2003 13:20:36 -0600 (CST),
Adam Heath wrote:
> Sorry, users will still ask. They always ask. Users still think that
> updating /usr/include/linux to point to /usr/src/linux/include/linux is the
> right thing to do.
And then, which package does provide /usr/src/linux directory?
Reg
On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> * Otto Wyss [Sun, Nov 02 2003, 10:21:14AM]:
> > Since when does the package libc6-dev depend on linux-kernel-headers? Is
> > this dependes really necessary?
>
>
>
> What not rename linux-kernel-headers to simple system-headers-linux?
> This wi
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 07:55:03PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> * Otto Wyss [Sun, Nov 02 2003, 10:21:14AM]:
> > Since when does the package libc6-dev depend on linux-kernel-headers? Is
> > this dependes really necessary?
>
>
>
> What not rename linux-kernel-headers to simple system-h
#include
* Otto Wyss [Sun, Nov 02 2003, 10:21:14AM]:
> Since when does the package libc6-dev depend on linux-kernel-headers? Is
> this dependes really necessary?
What not rename linux-kernel-headers to simple system-headers-linux?
This will prevent confused users (or: lazy to read the descripti
13 matches
Mail list logo
