Hi,
From: Cedric Ware <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bug#149714: libfam0 Does not depend on fam
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 02:30:02 +0200
> I do use dselect and have no use for a local famd, and am somewhat annoyed
> by this change in stable. (I have a vague recollection that dependencies
> in sta
Ricardo Javier Cardenes Medina wrote:
> Mmmh... Comes to mind... What are the chances for a non-developer to be
> on "writers" at CVS now that we're authenticating via developer-related
> ssh keys? That would be very convenient just as many people (at least on
> the Spanish team) remain not being D
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > purposes, defeats the dependencies - or comment it in /etc/inetd.conf,
> > but AFAIG there is no guarantee that a future upgrade of the fam package
> > will not reactivate it.
File a serious bug on fam if it ever overrides your local configuration
I am sure the Security team is already on thisbut an FYI.
- Forwarded message from Sir Mordred The Traitor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivery-date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 12:35:47 -0400
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE9YSKgMH8rk/80JWYRAkChAJ4j32BDMszTBegvFMxtmvwe33xZ8wCfY4dc
TPn4YgsZDWAvdWZ1/GOs1qY=
=2t96
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
## Phillip Hofmeister ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> --[ Solution:
> Upgrade to version 7.2.1.
No need to panic. Woody ist at postgresql-7.2.1-2, and potato might
be too old to have this bug.
Regards,
cmt
--
Spare Space
I must be really hard for some people to read the footer lines of every
mail they receive over this mailinglist... since I subscribed here to
this list (4 days or so) every day at least one of those "unsubscribe"
mails have been arriving. Or am I the only subscriber who receives
messages with t
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 07:07:12PM +0200, Michael Renzmann wrote:
> I must be really hard for some people to read the footer lines of every
> mail they receive over this mailinglist... since I subscribed here to
> this list (4 days or so) every day at least one of those "unsubscribe"
> mails hav
> But all in all you can always send these posts to /dev/null
> with procmail.
Why not do it on the mailing list server instead on all those inocent
recipients? :)
starting the next OT flame war on debian lists,
Boyan Krosnov, CCIE#8701
http://boyan.ludost.net/
Just another techie speaking for hi
Hi!
> [...]
> Or am I the only subscriber who receives messages with this footer text:
> [...]
I can calm you, I get this footer too ;-)
--
Simon Fuhrmann | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.dismember.de
GMX - Die Kommunikationsplattform im Internet.
http://www.gmx.net
Hi Simon.
Simon Fuhrmann wrote:
[...]
Or am I the only subscriber who receives messages with this footer text:
[...]
I can calm you, I get this footer too ;-)
Oh, great *phew* :)
Meanwhile the first poster "injected" a really good idea into my mind...
why not filter away those messages? As
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 08:41:29PM +0300, Boyan Krosnov wrote:
> > But all in all you can always send these posts to /dev/null
> > with procmail.
> Why not do it on the mailing list server instead on all those inocent
> recipients? :)
Filtering on a subject basis seems too dangerous to me, and fi
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 11:24:19PM +0300, Pavel Minev Penev wrote:
> as possible. They allow even ads from time to time (there was a $1000
> fine for commercial messages IIRC, is there still one?)
Still there...
http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#ads
Gareth
Hi,
From: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bug#149714: libfam0 Does not depend on fam
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 08:54:54 -0300
> On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > purposes, defeats the dependencies - or comment it in /etc/inetd.conf,
> > > but AFAIG ther
16 matches
Mail list logo
