Your message dated Fri, 29 Aug 2003 12:01:23 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#207455: packages.debian.org: HTML-encodes multi-byte
characters as single bytes
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 04:17:54PM +0200, Jens Seidel wrote:
> I found "Belarusian" instead of "Belarussian" in english/po/langs.pot and
> english/template/debian/language_names.wml.
According to
http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/englangn.html#ab
"Belarusian" is the correct English spellin
Hi all,
I found "Belarusian" instead of "Belarussian" in english/po/langs.pot and
english/template/debian/language_names.wml.
Please fix this typo!
Thanks,
Jens
Mr. Ratti has kindly granted dual-licence permission.
- Forwarded message from Alexandre Ratti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 09:39:48 +0200
From: Alexandre Ratti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Rick Moen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Licence on your Apache chroot environment doc
* Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-08-29 07:04]:
>On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 11:29:08AM +0200, you wrote:
>>Joeys recent advisory for node was named 374 too and added to the
>>archive with that number.
>
> Hmm. My copy says:
> [SECURITY] [DSA 274-1] New node packages fix remote root vulnerabil
Hello,
I write you to ask someone to add a note on
http://www.fr.debian.org/doc/devel-manuals
to french user can have the choice to read the french translating of debian
policy.
I have a long discussion about, with the translator, and developper.
Thank for all.
you read more explication on
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 01:46:02PM +0200, you wrote:
Still, this leaves us with two DSA 374 now.
well, since the number for the node advisory is horribly screwed up
anyway, is there a problem with just changing it to 375?
Mike Stone
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 11:21:42AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> A friend of mine kindly told me that he found the font in which the
> debian logo (the one with the red i dot) was done. I guess it would be
> a good idea to store that information somewhere when someone is
> interested in (Joey su
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 09:00:08PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 12:06:13PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > - I try to make my results online available, but 500 MByte don't fall
> > off the sky.
>
> You can now see always the newest version at
> http://fachschaft.
Hi,
I received some time ago a suggestion on how to rephrase the last two
steps described in this page. This is the suggestion. If noone objects,
then I could commit in a few days.
Thanks to Pete John for the suggestion.
- Boot from the rescue floppy, following the instructions in the
installatio
* Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-08-29 14:25]:
> Err no... it was inserted into the CVS before. The filename was correct,
> hence, the "correct" number on the web. Only the text and subject were
> wrong since... as I said... typo due to thick and clumsy fingers this
> morning. Sorry fo
are you crazy!!!,
but is it not right that
hp-web is a sponsor of debian !!!???!!!
hp is a bad fuck company
he sponsor american war
too!!!
http://www.motherearth.org/h-rights/du14.php
The solution? Americans must stop electing ruthless criminals to rule
this nation. We must convince fellow
Title: pic
Debian-www HClej I'd ruther not... FjH .
Look at YNd j
iEgHqwQtain where do you live?
Package: www.debian.org
Version: 2.95 (june 2003)
Severity: serious
The Securing Debian Manual is GPLv2 overall, but contains a third-party
GFDL inclusion, resulting in licence conflict. Ideal remedy, if
possible, would be if the inclusion's author (Alexandre Ratti) were
willing to dual-license
Your message dated Fri, 29 Aug 2003 01:58:32 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#207699: Licence conflict within Securing Debian Manual
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not
* Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-08-26 11:51]:
> - --
> Debian Security Advisory DSA 374-1 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.debian.org/security/ Matt Zimmerman
> August 26
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 11:29:08AM +0200, you wrote:
Joeys recent advisory for node was named 374 too and added to the
archive with that number.
Hmm. My copy says:
[SECURITY] [DSA 274-1] New node packages fix remote root vulnerability
(note: *2*74, not 374)
Mike Stone
Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> * Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-08-29 07:04]:
> >On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 11:29:08AM +0200, you wrote:
> >>Joeys recent advisory for node was named 374 too and added to the
> >>archive with that number.
> >
> > Hmm. My copy says:
> > [SECURITY] [DSA 274-1] New node
Michael Stone wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 11:29:08AM +0200, you wrote:
> >Joeys recent advisory for node was named 374 too and added to the
> >archive with that number.
>
> Hmm. My copy says:
> [SECURITY] [DSA 274-1] New node packages fix remote root vulnerability
> (note: *2*74, not 374)
T
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> all the rest of the garbage you (and/or Peter) spewed thus becomes
> your responsibility for not reading it.
If you did not want this discussed on the list, you should not have
sent it to it. I responded to the list since I read it on the list, and
kept the discussion there,
20 matches
Mail list logo
