On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 08:21:20AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> And on _top_ of that, we have all sorts of gratuitous autotools
> changes.
Let's not forget the random conversion of build systems -- dpatch seems to
be a favourite to rewrite perfectly functioning build systems into.
> This is roug
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 08:51:12AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hello Joey,
>
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2006, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Leaving ubuntu out of this, what puzzles me about your message, Raphael,
> > is this:
> >
> > Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > If you have some uploads pending, and would like
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:30:22PM +0200, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 January 2006 11:01, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > So you are saying it's the Debian Developer's job to pull changes from
> > ubuntu back? If that is an official statement, then that would be useful
> > for a d-d-a mail so w
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:10:54AM +0100, JanC wrote:
> On 1/17/06, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How about renaming Maintainer to Debian-Maintainer in Ubuntu's binary
> > packages, and having a specific Ubuntu-Maintainer?
>
> This should probably happen in a way that all (or most
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 03:59:23PM +, Kurt Pfeifle wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst wrote on debian-devel@lists.debian.org:
> > [Re-adding Cc to Kurt, as he's mentioned he isn't subscribed]
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 01:20:26PM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> > > Kurt Pfeifle wrote:
> > > > The kl
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:08:38PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > I keep hearing this, but I really don't believe it. In Debian, "Maintainer"
> > means "An individual or group of people primari
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:41:49PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 07:13:31AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > By way of example, the Debian maintainer is equipped to answer questions
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 01:40:11PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 08:31:44AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > All you'll get is the loud minority having a whinge then, no matter what the
> > outcome.
>
> It will certainly beat the hell out of c
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 05:33:33PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Sunday 22 January 2006 03:16, David Weinehall wrote:
>
> > Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a different set of
> > libraries, the bug might not even affect the Debian package, even though
> > they share the same sou
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 02:58:05PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> There have already been - admittedly sporadic - proposals to rewrite
> some key parts of the system, like the init scripts or adduser, in
> python. However, if the proponent knows from the beginning the
> implementation wouldn't be
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 04:17:13AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 17:01 -0600, Peter Samuelson a écrit :
> > [Josselin Mouette]
> > > Because python and ruby have similar features
> >
> > Same with perl and python.
>
> Great. I guess you're going to second the upcomi
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 11:03:03AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 30 janvier 2006 à 10:20 +1100, Matthew Palmer a écrit :
> > On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 02:58:05PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > There have already been - admittedly sporadic - proposals to rewrite
&g
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 02:46:02AM +0100, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 01:04:17AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> > However, the code of conduct seems to
> > point out that one should not Cc someone unless they specifically ask
> > for it (a guideline that you neglected to follow,
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 08:15:52AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:01:46 -0600, Steve Greenland
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On 24-Jan-05, 03:45 (CST), Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Last time I looked, invoke-rc.d was not yet a requirement to be used
> >> by packa
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 08:15:29PM +0100, Wim De Smet wrote:
> And splitting does indeed
> change something. If his kids are not root they cannot install the
> "offensive" part.
Absolutely false. But thanks for playing.
- Matt
signature.asc
Descrip
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 05:40:05PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005, Jochen Voss wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > My question: does anybody have further references for the question
> > whether it is ok or maybe even preferable to install non-programs in
> > /usr/bin?
>
> You forgot to quot
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 12:28:53AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>
> > "Because I don't wanna play by the rules!" is not a rationale.
>
> You are mistaken. I want to play by the rules, but the rules say
> executabl
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 10:26:44PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:07:52AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 02:57:23AM +0100, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > > This is obviously unacceptable. Why would a small number of people be
> > > allowed to veto
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:32:30PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:06:19AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> > And I believe that the Vancouver proposal, if implemented as intended up
> > to now, will not only affect what Debian really *is*, but in some ways
> > will *destroy
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 10:29:35AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Thursday 24 March 2005 03:40, Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If the free software fanatics succeed in kicking non-free from being
> > supported by Debian assets, such that the FSF documentation were no
> > longer avai
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 08:49:39AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:13:05 +1100, Matthew Palmer
> >"Some would say that this has already happened". Not a fork, per se, but
> >Ubuntu's licencing policy (and the general level-headedness of the p
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 02:18:28PM +, Alex Papadopoulos wrote:
> After having read the documentations I understood that I needed to apply as
> a new maintainer (with the appropriate identification process, needing an
> "advocate" Debian developper) and then find a sponsor that would accept
>
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 02:30:26PM +, Alex Papadopoulos wrote:
> Ok thanks for the quick reply. Another question though that I forgot
> before, if the sponsor uploads the packages is he automatically the
> maintainer of the package (because if this is the case, then it means that
> sponsorin
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 10:19:12PM -0300, Leonardo Serra wrote:
> You can use it to create SSH accounts for users who will
> only use them for SSH-tunneling; to create an encrypted
> tunnel to your servers.
Or you can use the -N option to OpenSSH.
- Matt
signature.asc
Description: Digital sign
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 02:12:13AM -0700, Stephen Birch wrote:
> I am interested in the intersection of packages installed on my
> machines with the list of orphaned packages. This is to be sure
> a program in use isn't orphaned without me becoming aware of it.
> Ideally the program would be run fr
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 02:45:19AM -0700, Stephen Birch wrote:
> Matthew Palmer([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2005-04-08 19:14:
> > You'd be wanting wnpp-check, in the devscripts package. Check out rc-check
> > while you're at it. Both are cronable.
>
> ahh ... devscripts. I
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 11:33:24PM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
[mjp: I sure didn't write this, but that's how it's been attributed...]
> > Whenever someone submits an ITP for the software A, whose functionality
> > is already provided in Debian by B, t
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 09:30:39PM +0200, Juergen Strobel wrote:
> Almost noone uses kernel-patch-cryptoloop, so I let things slide. AFAIK,
> sarge is to use a 2.6.x kernel, so this package is mostly useless.
> However, a few people expressed interest recently, and added to the old
> bug report #25
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 10:38:01PM +0200, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> Hi Matt!
>
> On Sun, 01 May 2005, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>
> > On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 09:36:57PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> >
> > > Actually, I don't think that the packages.*-code is part of the problem.
> > > Ubuntu treats th
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 03:06:10PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 08:46:44PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
>
> > Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > Every Debian derivative I have seen does this the same way. There is some
> > > inaccuracy in either case, but I think this is the le
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 12:25:28AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.05.03.0006 +0200]:
> > Another option would be to leave the source package maintainer the
> > same (to retain proper credit, etc.), but override the binary
> > package maintainer
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 04:36:30PM -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
> PS: of interest to the mplayer thread: motion.c allows mpeg-1 & mpeg-2
> support for non-commercial software. AKA: GPL/LGPL'd implementations are
> allowed.
No, GPL/LGPL is not non-commercial.
- Matt
signature.asc
Description: Digit
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 03:56:35PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Can anyone tell me what this means, and who is trying to upload this to
> Debian without even sending me a patch first?
What it means: the Ubuntu maintainer for tla-load-dirs (sorry, don't know
who) managed to send their package in th
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 12:47:30AM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> The same logic applies to many bugs as well. Would it really be better to
> have an open bug report in debbugs, than a patch on people.ubuntu.com?
I'd prefer an open bug report in debbugs with the patch included.
> I know of no re
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 11:26:58PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> That said, I was informed today that there's a policy that when bugs are
> submitted the patch has to be put on people.ubuntu.com and linked to in
> the report rather than being included in the report, which did strike me
> as rather str
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 03:56:18PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 07:49:39AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 12:47:30AM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > proposals, but we have very limited developer resources compared to
> &
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 08:07:33AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * John Goerzen
>
> | If it matters, I'll add my voice to the chorus on that. Anything that
> | requires me to go off to the net to fix takes longer to fix and is
> | more annoying to deal with.
>
> Well, some people like just ha
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 10:23:06AM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 09:21:37PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > This solves your problem fairly well, since the issue then becomes only
> > keeping d-i secure and keeping the installed system secure, not keeping
> > the system secure w
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 10:31:33AM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
> > > - Separate runlevels: 2 for multi, no net, 3 for multi no X, 4 for X, 4=5
> >
> > No way. Debian has always avoided mindlessly dictating what runlevels
> > must be used for. There's no reason to destroy this feature now. And
> >
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 09:19:06AM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> The fact is that Ubuntu has proactively contributed a lot of code back to
> Debian, much more than most Debian derivatives have. I see no reason why
> claims that Ubuntu is not doing _enough_, or making it easy _enough_ for
> Debian
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 05:11:05PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 07 juin 2005 à 02:12 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > Oh, you'll also note that the traditional "slow" architectures (mips,
> > mipsel, m68k, arm) aren't on this "problems" list. That's because a *lot*
> > of effort ha
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 11:48:49AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> I do not know why you doubt that Luca will come back but as far as I know
> him from conferences I'm pretty sure that his main interest were good
> quality Debian packages
Recalling his packages in the past, I get a different opinion
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 01:13:16AM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> to find their own (sometimes flawed) solution to a very common problem.
Years using Linux: 10.
Times I've absolutely needed an X-less boot when an XDM was installed: 0.
How common was that problem you were trying
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 02:33:49PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
>
> > Stop sending mail from dynamically-assigned IP addresses. Deal.
>
> Gee. There is no reliable way to know whether an IP address is static
> or not. SMTP is supposed to work from
On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 02:40:47PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: Bart Martens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * Package name: phpunit2
*cough*330301*cough*
- Matt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Con
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 06:01:27PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 August 2006 17:31, John Goerzen wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 05:20:26PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > > debian/patches/ as separate file, how do I know how to update/remove/etc
> >
> > There would be no debia
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 06:31:18PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think people that are NMUing packages rarely care about this.
>
> When NMU'ing a package, I'd really appreciate to know which changes have
> which purpose and which "specificity". In part
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 06:54:51PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 August 2006 18:35, John Goerzen wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 06:01:27PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > > > > How is that not true if one knows a given patch system and does know
> > > > > about your VCS and ne
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 08:47:01PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 August 2006 20:11, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>> > But you lose debian specific patches to be clearly separated from the
>
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 08:36:18PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> * John Goerzen [Wed, Aug 02 2006, 01:01:51PM]:
> > On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 08:47:01PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > > > to learn how we deal with this all.
> > >
> > > This is fine, but (again) you forget about your 'ap
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 02:08:00AM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Thursday 03 August 2006 00:45, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 08:47:01PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 02 August 2006 20:11, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > > >
I've given up on this thread, but I just have to say one thing:
On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 11:38:39AM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> `Hate patch systems' can easily apply all chunks and start
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Easily. Heh. You should be a comedian.
- Matt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [
On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 01:52:09PM +0100, Darren Salt wrote:
> I demand that Matthew Palmer may or may not have written...
>
> > I've given up on this thread, but I just have to say one thing:
>
> > On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 11:38:39AM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
>
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 08:14:43PM +, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 11:12:15AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > What I need as someone working on a package for which I'm not the
> > maintainer is this:
> >
> > dpkg-source -x must give me something I can immediately edit and diff
On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 01:12:59AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> I have to admit that when choosing 0.09+0.1 as version number I didn't
> check with dpkg --compare-versions because then I would have discovered
> that "dpkg --compare-versions '0.09' '=' '0.9'" yields true, which I
> think is rather
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 07:47:36PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 01:29:40AM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > * Michael Biebl [Fri, 11 Aug 2006 01:12:59 +0200]:
> >
> > > that "dpkg --compare-versions '0.09' '=' '0.9'" yields true, which I
> > > think is rather odd, beca
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 08:47:14PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 10:42:53AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> >
> > I'd imagine you'd be hard pressed to find a mathematician who knows what to
> > do with a number that reads 0.0.9, eit
On Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 05:55:05PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
> Cyril Bouthors wrote:
> > On 3 Apr 2006, Adam Majer wrote:
> >
> >
> >> But the correct method of closing bugs is to send a message to
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the explanation of the fix and not in
> >> the changelog. Well, at lea
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 12:13:57AM -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 00:04 +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
> > Why not simply Provide: sunwlxsl all of the
> > time, doesn't it provide sunwlxsl on other arches?
>
> But how? sunwlxsl is something which is only present in
> OpenSolaris-b
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 09:49:00AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> in case I am in the wrong list, I beg you pardon, but I asked this
> already in debian-user without success.
Custom *packages* is probably more on-topic for debian-mentors, but I don't
think that custom packages are the right sol
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 10:47:48AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Am 15.05.2006 um 10:32 Uhr haben Sie geschrieben:
> > CFEngine is in Debian, but has some real nasty frustrations. Puppet
> > isn't in Debian, but Jamie is working hard on the packages and I've got
> > some provisional ones built
On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 11:30:59PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le samedi 20 mai 2006 à 19:43 -0700, Erast Benson a écrit :
> > Nexenta is absolutely rock stable OS (thanks to legendary Solaris
> > history)
>
> Solaris history is indeed legendary, but not for its stability.
Well, when you con
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 10:12:32PM +0100, Chris Forsey wrote:
> Not sure if this is the right list, but unsure where to post as I need
> some guys with good debian experience
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], for
starters. This list is for development of Debian itself.
- M
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 12:44:40PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> "Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >[Don suggested to use the tags _and_ the versioning information in a
> >transitional period; I'm not 100% sure what this buys us, except that I'm
> >not sure
On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 06:50:07PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Adam Borowski wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 06:17:20PM -0400, Jason Spiro wrote:
> [snip]
> > the moment you use openwatcom to compile any work-related piece
> > of software (thu
On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 07:34:02AM +0200, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 08:37:52PM -0400, LEE, Yui-wah (Clement) wrote:
> > I am building a package in which one of the binary has
> > to have the setuid and setgid bits set. I wonder which
> > one of the following two is
On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 09:36:37AM +0100, Steve Kemp wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 08:37:52PM -0400, LEE, Yui-wah (Clement) wrote:
>
> > I am building a package in which one of the binary has
> > to have the setuid and setgid bits set. I wonder which
> > one of the following two is the more ap
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 11:13:30AM +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
> Le jeudi 06 juillet 2006 à 07:36 +1000, Matthew Palmer a écrit :
> [about suid bits]
> > My personal preference would be for the maintainer to just take a stand, set
> > it or not, and let people who actually kn
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:45:21PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 10:57:56PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:25:37 +1300 Nick Phillips wrote:
> >
> > > The fact that we have conveniently
> > > ignored this problem when dealing with the GPL and BSD lic
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:20:03PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> as a php web app packager, I should say that the policy is a real mess,
> since there is no policy (and I really hope to become a DD soon, in
> order to work on one with other interested people).
There's no need to be wearing you
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:04:55PM +0100, Kees Leune wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:20:03 +0100, Pierre Habouzit
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > IMHO, web apps should be installed in /usr/share/*appname*/
>
> Agree; it seems that most of the responses boil down to that. The next
> question then
[No Cc needed, as per list policy]
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:47:42PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > it's _quite_ true that you don't need to play with include_path.
> > your library has to know it's installed
> > into /usr/share/php/ and either :
> > * use some __FILE__ magic in its requires/
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 03:14:47PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:00:02PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>
> > > Right. And when the .deb gets distributed on its own?
> >
> > Then whoever does the distributing should ensure that they compl
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 10:13:05AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Le Mer 12 Janvier 2005 01:31, Matthew Palmer a ?crit :
> > [No Cc needed, as per list policy]
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:47:42PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > > > it's _quite_
[No Cc please, as per list policy]
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 10:16:43AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Le Mer 12 Janvier 2005 01:31, Matthew Palmer a ?crit :
> > So you patch libfile2.php to require_once 'mylib/libfile1.php'
> > instead of just 'libfile1.php'.
&g
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 05:21:02AM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
> Also, is there a way to avoid a dpkg upgrade overwriting /usr/bin/dpkg
> and (IIRC) divert /usr/bin/dpkg -> /usr/bin/dpkg.real, so that I dont
> have to remember to redo this step?
man dpkg-divert
It rocks. Hard.
- Matt
signature.a
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 02:40:43PM -0300, Nicol?s Lichtmaier wrote:
> I've checked debian-keyring's changelog and I seem to have been marked
> as "emeritus":
>
> ~ Emeritus \E*mer"i*tus\, n.; pl. {Emeriti}. [L.]
> ~ A veteran who has honorably completed his service.
>
> I certainly appreciat
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 07:59:59PM -0500, SR, ESC wrote:
> Le lun 2005-01-24 a 19:26:34 -0500, Helen Faulkner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a dit:
> >
> > I do not believe that being thick-skinned enough to cope with people who
> > are very agressive or insulting should be a requirement for involvement
>
r government (and,
since you live in a "democracy" it truly is *your* government - remember,
"of the people, by the people, and for the people", or some such) as overly
friendly, I don't quite see the problem.
--
---
#include
Matthew Palmer, Geek In Residence
http://ieee.uow.edu.au/~mjp16
if they take delibrate action to hurt _any_
> country, or its economy, they shall have to live with the consequences.
Boycott us back. Considering the US government screws .au at every
opportunity, I doubt we'd even notice.
--
---
#include
Matthew Palmer, Geek In Residence
http://ieee.uow.edu.au/~mjp16
folks to merge these scripts
It's an adduser thing, best to keep it there.
There's no need for totally separate adduser and adduser-ldap programs - the
two co-exist quite nicely.
--
-------
#include
Matthew Palmer, Geek In Residence
http://ieee.uow.edu.au/~mjp16
On Tue, 27 May 2003, Zed Pobre wrote:
> > Could you elaborate on what ways yours works better than the original
> > adduser? I'm sure Roland would love to hear about functionality
> > improvements, and I'd certainly be keen for any improvements to the
> > LDAP-specific code...
>
> My version
On Tue, 27 May 2003, Zed Pobre wrote:
> > > > Could you elaborate on what ways yours works better than the original
> > > > adduser? I'm sure Roland would love to hear about functionality
> > > > improvements, and I'd certainly be keen for any improvements to the
> > > > LDAP-specific code...
> >
ll a future version of Debian, but you should be able to get the
old xpm4.7 and it's dependencies from a Woody CD for some years to come.
And pester wordperfect^WCorel to use libraries from the current millenium.
--
---
#
----------
#include
Matthew Palmer, Geek In Residence
http://ieee.uow.edu.au/~mjp16
o have
the script available. Could you elaborate on your usage of maildirmake in
this courier-less situation?
[1] Arguments as to whether Debian should do this or not should be directed
to /dev/null.
>
> Thanks Andreas
>
>
--
----------
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, David B Harris wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 11:46:48 +1000 (EST)
> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > Now I'm wondering about it even more. IMHO `maildirmake' is _v
lly-debian-specific" utils in there already, although my aesthetic
antennae are twitching...
--
-----------
#include
Matthew Palmer, Geek In Residence
http://ieee.uow.edu.au/~mjp16
"fixed" in that version of the
package. It implies that versions less than the one in which the changelog
entry appear have the bug - which they do not.
--
-------
#include
Matthew Palmer, Geek In Residence
http://ieee.uow.edu.au/~mjp16
tterly useless, and merely
annoying.
--
-----------
#include
Matthew Palmer, Geek In Residence
http://ieee.uow.edu.au/~mjp16
e how the license shoudl be changed to be suitable for the non-free
> section?
I think the only thing needed would be to get an OK for Debian to distribute
the program, in modified form. That'd get it into non-free.
--
-------
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 09:07:25PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > That's odd, because debian-devel@lists.debian.org is a mailing list run on a
> > Debian GNU/Linux machine, which is immune to windows macro virii.
>
> Yo
truments is a trademark. They may not like
you using their name in apparent support for another product...
--
-----------
#include
Matthew Palmer, Geek In Residence
http://ieee.uow.edu.au/~mjp16
ncee
who routes her packets through it).
But yes, there's probably more people utilising Debian boxes than there are
Debian boxes, overall, I agree.
--
-------
#include
Matthew Palmer, Geek In Residence
http://ieee.uow.edu.au/~mjp16
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 01:27:04PM -0600, Dwayne C. Litzenberger wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 08:43:20AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > On 24-Jul-03, 17:56 (CDT), "Dwayne C. Litzenberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > Systems with large numbers of users (and normally use, for exampl
On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 12:10:01AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> debconf (important) depends on liblocale-gettext-perl (standard).
> Presumably liblocale-gettext-perl should become important.
> Or debconf could be replaced in 'important' with cdebconf, of course.
Ouch...
> db2:
> This
On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 02:45:56AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> >db2:
> > This is pretty old... who still uses it, anyway? More specifically,
> > does anyone use libdb2++, and if so, are they only things which
> > aren't supposed to be transitioned?
>
> OK, this is an odd list:
> Package
On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 11:39:38AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 07:10:06PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > And, quite honestly, animals should probably disappear. When all of a
> > maintainer's packages were NMU'd into stable, and they haven
[It might also be a good idea to wrap your postings]
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 01:07:46PM +0200, Xavier Roche wrote:
> It might be a good idea to reject MIME messages in -devel? Do we need
> attachments? (patchs can be inserted in the message body)
GPG/MIME is nice. And attached patches make thing
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 10:08:17AM +0200, Micha? Politowski wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:30:11 +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 01:17:01PM +0100, Steve Kemp wrote:
> > > http://www.steve.org.uk/cgi-bin/debian/index.cgi
> >
> > If you're just scanning for binaries wit
101 - 200 of 294 matches
Mail list logo
