#include hallo.h
* Gerfried Fuchs [Tue, Mar 02 2010, 01:17:17PM]:
* Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net [2010-03-02 10:57:28 CET]:
For context, Andreas is replying to
http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/blog/?p=453
I'm not sure why people start discussions on blogs, when we have mailing
#include hallo.h
* Sven Luther [Mon, May 28 2007, 06:00:36PM]:
You're not bringing up anything new.
And i will repeat it as long as people try to ignore me, and until
Debian stands up and act in a dign and honourable way in this.
You're not helping yourself if you continue.
You mean,
#include hallo.h
* Sven Luther [Mon, May 28 2007, 08:23:52PM]:
On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 08:16:22PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
cook this story _again_. You may be right, or not, it is just off-topic.
And beating dead horses won't make you many friends.
Because i am not yet as dead
#include hallo.h
* Raphael Hertzog [Wed, Apr 11 2007, 08:46:29AM]:
If we're going to experiment something like that, I think it would have
to:
- be a subset of our packages and it should concentrate on applications,
we should avoid library updates in that section
- have a policy of
#include hallo.h
* Joerg Schilling [Sun, Mar 25 2007, 11:58:39AM]:
Martin Zobel-Helas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Read the Debian mailing list archives and you will find some of the
related
personal atacks.
I asked for references, but you seem not to be able to give me ANY of
#include hallo.h
* Radu-Cristian FOTESCU [Tue, Jul 18 2006, 03:38:32AM]:
Too bad that the moist important GNU/Linux project and the most important
GNU/Linux community can't afford a good lawyer to explain you how to protect
your mark.
Like Henning Makholm said, it's better not having me as
#include hallo.h
* Radu-Cristian FOTESCU [Sun, Jul 16 2006, 07:44:00PM]:
I'm terribly sorry to say, but I'm disappointed by the unprofessional
approach. Or, take it the other way around: if unofficial backports can be
seen as official, how comes we can't download the updated CeBIT 2006
#include hallo.h
* Julien BLACHE [Fri, Jun 30 2006, 09:10:06PM]:
Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
What about creating a logo for a strategy similar to the Intel Inside
campain? I imagine a simple circle of letters Debian Powered (in
Debian-red) around the Swirl.
Something
#include hallo.h
* Raphael Hertzog [Wed, Jun 28 2006, 12:17:45PM]:
9. It would be great if Ubuntu could advertise a bit more its Debian
correlation by putting Debian logos in CD covers, background images,
installer splashscreen, etc. Some kind of Trademark policy needs to be
worked out
#include hallo.h
* Branden Robinson [Thu, Feb 05 2004, 12:07:49AM]:
me) that can justify a such delay. Damn, I would be happy if I could
tell everyone who asks me why we don't have X 4.3 in Sid: this is broken
and this is broken, this would ruine most people's day. But having only
Moin Adrian!
Adrian Bunk schrieb am Wednesday, den 04. February 2004:
him, and if the question isn't Should XFree86 4.3.0 enter unstable
now? but instead What's missing until everyone (including Branden)
considers XFree86 4.3.0 to be ready for unstable? might lead to
Please calculate the
Moin Christian!
Christian Heller schrieb am Thursday, den 03. July 2003:
There used to be the http://sourceforge.net/projects/redtea/ project
that set out to build a Java equivalent of RPM (RedHat Package Manager).
It was red because of RedHat. It was tea in response to Java (coffee).
Lool.
Moin Robert!
Robert Ribnitz schrieb am Saturday, den 07. June 2003:
I think the reason behind using a 2.2. kernel is (was?) that it works on
all architectures. So the 'default debian install' will also work on
No. We use different kernels on different architectures. The main reason
was the
#include hallo.h
* kam6 [Sat, Mar 01 2003, 10:06:01PM]:
Hello - I am very interested in installing Debian Linux in my computer, but
your webpage is extremely confusing:
When the webpage (the page! not the manuals referenced there) is
confusing, you report this to debian-www@lists.debian.org, if
14 matches
Mail list logo
