Le 29/08/2017 à 14:51, Mario Castelán Castro a écrit :
> I suggest you write to the maintainer of that Debian package.
Thanks for the suggestion. In the meantime, I found a bug report that I
missed : https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=867166
This is give me the exact answer I need.
On 29/08/17 02:22, Adrien CLERC wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Since the announce of grsecurity to go to a complete non-free (as in
> beer) model (see https://grsecurity.net/passing_the_baton.php), I was
> wondering if there is any future for those packages.
I suggest you write to the maintainer of that Debian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 04:04:50PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Why doesn't someone develop a similar protocol to Microsoft's network
> neighborhood and smb for Linux.
Well, all SMB does is handle network file systems and network
printers. Bot
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 16:04:50 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Why doesn't someone develop a similar protocol to Microsoft's network
> neighborhood and smb for Linux. So when you join a NIS like system
> that it will automatically authenticate you on your Linux network
> with your currently logg
Hi,
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-01-22 23:04]:
>Why doesn't someone develop a similar protocol to Microsoft's network
>neighborhood and smb for Linux. So when you join a NIS like system that
>it will automatically authenticate you on your Linux network with your
>currently lo
esOn Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 04:04:50PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Why doesn't someone develop a similar protocol to Microsoft's network
> neighborhood and smb for Linux. So when you join a NIS like system that
> it will automatically authenticate you on your Linux network with your
> curr
Davide Bolcioni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The concept seems very interesting to me, although I wonder if it is
> within the scope of LSB; I had the notion that its effort was
> concerned with standardizing existing development approaches.
Probably it's not [it being TenDRA]. On the other han
Christopher Hassell wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 1998 at 10:11:31AM +0100, Davide Bolcioni wrote:
> ]
> ] > ...
> ] > This is so that every app doesnt install their own version of python
> ] > "just in case". That could be extended to all interpreters and some
> ] > libraries probably and a farmed o
Bruce Stephens wrote:
>
> Davide Bolcioni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If we say a library is a collection of functions which have a
> > signature and an implementation, the notion of change becomes: 1 -
> > an implementation change which preserves the signature; 2 - a
> > signature change (
Davide Bolcioni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If we say a library is a collection of functions which have a
> signature and an implementation, the notion of change becomes: 1 -
> an implementation change which preserves the signature; 2 - a
> signature change (which may be construed as a deletion
On Thu, 12 Nov 1998, Andy Tai wrote:
> > Compilers are also an issue I feel strongly about. I think gcc and egcs
> > are awsome, but no match (yet) for commercial compilers.
>
> Don't even think of trying making some commerical compilers part of the Linux
> standard, if they's what you are think
Alan Cox wrote:
> ...
> This is so that every app doesnt install their own version of python
> "just in case". That could be extended to all interpreters and some
> libraries probably and a farmed out approach would IMHO be good.
This is a notion of "software contract", if I understand correctly
Badlandz wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
> I think it is unwize at this point to make LSB conserned with X11R6
> standards. Of course it should/could comply with what X11R6, but I
libX11.so.* is Xlib is X11, as are the X packages. Other stuff like
themed widget sets sit on X11 (ie another library that y
--- Begin Message ---
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > What else will the lsb cover? Or has there been a decision about that
> > yet?
>
> The only other stuff covered at the meeting was X11. The good work XFree
> does is a big help there as their binary interfaces and the X specification
> API's are
> What else will the lsb cover? Or has there been a decision about that
> yet?
The only other stuff covered at the meeting was X11. The good work XFree
does is a big help there as their binary interfaces and the X specification
API's are both stable. Motif has been raised as a question, as h
> UDI is irrelevant. The existing UDI semantics cannot express the Linux
> resource management or driver layering. Its also out of the lsb standard
> area completely (indeed conceptually you could probably hack freebsd
> around and produce a LSB compliant freebsd) since we care about services
> at
On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, Alan Cox wrote:
> > steps in bridging linux compatibility. What, if any, is the consensus on
> > the FHS 2.0... do the distributions that are part of the lsb agree to
> > use it?
>
> It was discussed at and shortly after the LI meeting when Bruce presented
> the whole cunning
> steps in bridging linux compatibility. What, if any, is the consensus on
> the FHS 2.0... do the distributions that are part of the lsb agree to
> use it?
It was discussed at and shortly after the LI meeting when Bruce presented
the whole cunning plan. FHS 2.0 is a big help but it might need som
18 matches
Mail list logo
