Hi guys,
while troubleshooting #681796 I had to rebuild older version of synaptics
driver package and I see that there is a patch which had been there for a while
and never adopted upstream... should not it be forwarded upstream?
$> git lg debian/patches/02-do-not-use-synaptics-for-keyboards.pat
--- On Mon, 7/18/11, Will Set wrote:
> Unless an issue is trust of debian non-free repo, why not
> try the
> firmware-nonfree package seeing if it solves your issue?
> You always have the option to purge the package and remove
> non-free from your
> sources.list, if you so ch
free
> >
> >- Binary firmware for various drivers in
> > the Linux ker
>
> Can this issue be resolved without installing the firmware-linux-nonfree
package? I'm not too keen on installing drivers from non-free. Thanks
Unless an
On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 01:08 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 00:42 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 00:00:24 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> >
> > > Why is the patched 1.6.4-2 not built for amd64, only i386 and s390?
> > >
> > If you're asking this quest
On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 00:42 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 00:00:24 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
>
> > Why is the patched 1.6.4-2 not built for amd64, only i386 and s390?
> >
> If you're asking this question, you shouldn't be using debian unstable.
Sorry for raising this
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 01:20:41 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> Taking a closer look at the bug report 548716 from Pancho Horrillo shows
> that he has an amd64 box, so this bug should not be closed until 1.6.4-2
> is available for that architecture.
>
That's not how the bts works. Bugs are close
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 00:00:24 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> Why is the patched 1.6.4-2 not built for amd64, only i386 and s390?
>
If you're asking this question, you shouldn't be using debian unstable.
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-x-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a su
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> Package: xserver-xorg-core
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of
'xserver-xorg-core'
Limit currently set to 'package':'xserver-xorg-core'
> Version: 1.6.4-1
Unknown command or malformed arguments to command.
> reopen
Package: xserver-xorg-core
Version: 1.6.4-1
reopen 548716
Why is the patched 1.6.4-2 not built for amd64, only i386 and s390?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-x-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
=_NextPart_000_%RND_NUM_o.Y
Content-Type: text/plain;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
As half-form'd Insects on the Banks of Nile:
H=F5pe to have a b=ECgger p=E8nis ?
W=E8 h=E3ve the st=F9ff the pornst=E3r use to have b=ECgger
p=E8nis, contr=F5l their org=E3sm and bo=F5st thei
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Out of curiosity, how can doing the chdir() break anything? A relative
> symlink has to be resolved relative to the directory in which the
Because now you're in a different directory than you expect. However,
since this is just exec()ing the X serve
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Out of curiosity, how can doing the chdir() break anything? A relative
> symlink has to be resolved relative to the directory in which the
Because now you're in a different directory than you expect. However,
since this is just exec()ing the X serve
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 06:22:30PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> Eh? I haven't weighed in on this issue at all. I simply saw the
> changelog message when upgrading my X packages, read the 138195 bug
> report, and wondered why nobody had pointed out what seemed "obvious" to
> me.
Er, sorry. For some r
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 06:22:30PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> Eh? I haven't weighed in on this issue at all. I simply saw the
> changelog message when upgrading my X packages, read the 138195 bug
> report, and wondered why nobody had pointed out what seemed "obvious" to
> me.
Er, sorry. For some r
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
> You spent a lot of time in the bug logs of #138195 arguing that the
> chdir() before the execv() would have exactly this advantage, didn't
> you?
>
> If so, how is this an advantage over the current implementation?
Eh? I haven't weighed in on this is
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 04:44:26AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> Advantages:
> - won't break anything that relies on X being started from a particular
>directory
You spent a lot of time in the bug logs of #138195 arguing that the
chdir() before the execv() would have exactly this advantage, didn'
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
> You spent a lot of time in the bug logs of #138195 arguing that the
> chdir() before the execv() would have exactly this advantage, didn't
> you?
>
> If so, how is this an advantage over the current implementation?
Eh? I haven't weighed in on this is
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 04:44:26AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> Advantages:
> - won't break anything that relies on X being started from a particular
>directory
You spent a lot of time in the bug logs of #138195 arguing that the
chdir() before the execv() would have exactly this advantage, didn'
I hate to beat a dead horse here, but it seems like the "right" fix to
this problem is to use the symlink as it is intended, which is to say
calling execv on it and letting the kernel resolve it.
I understand the desire to make sure the symlink doesn't point back to
the wrapper, but you can still
I hate to beat a dead horse here, but it seems like the "right" fix to
this problem is to use the symlink as it is intended, which is to say
calling execv on it and letting the kernel resolve it.
I understand the desire to make sure the symlink doesn't point back to
the wrapper, but you can still
#include
* Branden Robinson [Sun, Nov 17 2002, 01:38:00AM]:
> > > We've already got that.
> > In /etc/alternatives?
>
> What good would that do? You can run multiple display managers at once,
What good the *dm packages do not conflict? You policy is inconsistent.
Why do I get a SILLE question
#include
* Branden Robinson [Fri, Nov 15 2002, 09:54:34PM]:
> Imagine you misconfigured sendmail, e.g., you've got it configured as an
> open relay. You see the problem and type "/etc/init.d/sendmail stop"
Sendmail does not start hardware related things, having a chance to
crash the box immedia
#include
* Branden Robinson [Sun, Nov 17 2002, 01:38:00AM]:
> > > We've already got that.
> > In /etc/alternatives?
>
> What good would that do? You can run multiple display managers at once,
What good the *dm packages do not conflict? You policy is inconsistent.
Why do I get a SILLE question
#include
* Branden Robinson [Fri, Nov 15 2002, 09:54:34PM]:
> Imagine you misconfigured sendmail, e.g., you've got it configured as an
> open relay. You see the problem and type "/etc/init.d/sendmail stop"
Sendmail does not start hardware related things, having a chance to
crash the box immedia
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 11:22:04AM -0600, Warren Turkal wrote:
> On Friday 15 November 2002 08:51 pm, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 12:24:14PM -0600, Warren Turkal wrote:
> > > On Thursday 14 November 2002 02:20 pm, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > > > > What's a login-manager?
> > >
>
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 11:22:04AM -0600, Warren Turkal wrote:
> On Friday 15 November 2002 08:51 pm, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 12:24:14PM -0600, Warren Turkal wrote:
> > > On Thursday 14 November 2002 02:20 pm, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > > > > What's a login-manager?
> > >
>
On Friday 15 November 2002 08:51 pm, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 12:24:14PM -0600, Warren Turkal wrote:
> > On Thursday 14 November 2002 02:20 pm, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > > > What's a login-manager?
> >
> > Maybe x-display-manager is a better choice of wording?
>
> We've alrea
On Friday 15 November 2002 08:51 pm, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 12:24:14PM -0600, Warren Turkal wrote:
> > On Thursday 14 November 2002 02:20 pm, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > > > What's a login-manager?
> >
> > Maybe x-display-manager is a better choice of wording?
>
> We've alrea
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 09:20:13PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Imagine you misconfigured X, eg. wrong monitor settings You see the
> problem and type Ctrl-Alt-Backspace quickly. Fine. Now, you continue the
> installation and work without X. Next morning, you boot the box and see
> some X thingie s
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 12:24:14PM -0600, Warren Turkal wrote:
> On Thursday 14 November 2002 02:20 pm, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > > What's a login-manager?
>
> Maybe x-display-manager is a better choice of wording?
We've already got that.
--
G. Branden Robinson|Any man who doe
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 09:22:46PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Bla. Come down. Did you never learn to separate personal things from the
> work?
You first, when you write your mails.
--
G. Branden Robinson| The key to being a Southern
Debian GNU/Linux |
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 09:20:13PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Imagine you misconfigured X, eg. wrong monitor settings You see the
> problem and type Ctrl-Alt-Backspace quickly. Fine. Now, you continue the
> installation and work without X. Next morning, you boot the box and see
> some X thingie s
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 12:24:14PM -0600, Warren Turkal wrote:
> On Thursday 14 November 2002 02:20 pm, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > > What's a login-manager?
>
> Maybe x-display-manager is a better choice of wording?
We've already got that.
--
G. Branden Robinson|Any man who doe
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 09:22:46PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Bla. Come down. Did you never learn to separate personal things from the
> work?
You first, when you write your mails.
--
G. Branden Robinson| The key to being a Southern
Debian GNU/Linux |
On Thursday 14 November 2002 02:20 pm, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > What's a login-manager?
Maybe x-display-manager is a better choice of wording?
Warren
--
Treasurer, GOLUM, Inc.
http://www.golum.org
On Thursday 14 November 2002 02:20 pm, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > What's a login-manager?
Maybe x-display-manager is a better choice of wording?
Warren
--
Treasurer, GOLUM, Inc.
http://www.golum.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
#include
* Branden Robinson [Wed, Nov 13 2002, 06:24:22PM]:
> > and also very bad news if you happen to have a getty on vt7, as you
> > just lost the ability to use the machine locally.
>
> Now, cut out that talkin' sense, boy; ol' Bloch has already made up his
> mind.
Bla. Come down. Did you n
#include
* Branden Robinson [Wed, Nov 13 2002, 12:59:42PM]:
> > Even the fact XDM is not started during the installation is a
> > potentialy dangerous surprise.
>
> What's "dangerous" about it?
>
> Having a sudden VT switch in the middle of your upgrade procedure is
> also a surprise.
Imagine
#include
* Branden Robinson [Wed, Nov 13 2002, 06:24:22PM]:
> > and also very bad news if you happen to have a getty on vt7, as you
> > just lost the ability to use the machine locally.
>
> Now, cut out that talkin' sense, boy; ol' Bloch has already made up his
> mind.
Bla. Come down. Did you n
#include
* Branden Robinson [Wed, Nov 13 2002, 12:59:42PM]:
> > Even the fact XDM is not started during the installation is a
> > potentialy dangerous surprise.
>
> What's "dangerous" about it?
>
> Having a sudden VT switch in the middle of your upgrade procedure is
> also a surprise.
Imagine
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 04:55:03PM -0300, John Lenton wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:59:42PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 02:28:37PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > >
> > > Even the fact XDM is not started during the installation is a
> > > potentialy dangerous su
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 04:55:03PM -0300, John Lenton wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:59:42PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 02:28:37PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > >
> > > Even the fact XDM is not started during the installation is a
> > > potentialy dangerous su
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 09:41:20PM -0800, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> For the record I list few method to disable xdm|gdm|kdm|wdm,... in my
> reference:
You seem to have left out the proper way, the Debian Way(tm)!
~# dpkg --purge xdm gdm kdm wdm
It's silly to install daemons if you're not going to us
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 09:41:20PM -0800, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> For the record I list few method to disable xdm|gdm|kdm|wdm,... in my
> reference:
You seem to have left out the proper way, the Debian Way(tm)!
~# dpkg --purge xdm gdm kdm wdm
It's silly to install daemons if you're not going to us
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:59:42PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 02:28:37PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> >
> > Even the fact XDM is not started during the installation is a
> > potentialy dangerous surprise.
>
> What's "dangerous" about it?
>
> Having a sudden VT switc
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:59:42PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 02:28:37PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> >
> > Even the fact XDM is not started during the installation is a
> > potentialy dangerous surprise.
>
> What's "dangerous" about it?
>
> Having a sudden VT switc
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 02:28:37PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > I don't see why this is preferable to two other mechanisms that Debian
> > uses for the disabling of daemons:
> >
> > 1) editing /etc/init.d/* scripts to exit 0 near the top
> > 2) removing the package
>
> Are both not mechanisms b
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 02:28:37PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > I don't see why this is preferable to two other mechanisms that Debian
> > uses for the disabling of daemons:
> >
> > 1) editing /etc/init.d/* scripts to exit 0 near the top
> > 2) removing the package
>
> Are both not mechanisms b
#include
* Branden Robinson [Tue, Nov 12 2002, 04:52:46AM]:
> > The content of /etc/X11/default-display-manager can be "null" or
> > any bogus word like "disabled" if this option is chosen.
>
> I don't see why this is preferable to two other mechanisms that Debian
> uses for the disabling of dae
Thanks.
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 04:52:46AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 02:44:13PM -0800, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > Request: refine install script for newbie
> >
> > When display manager are installed, script rightfully asks which display
> > manager to install using insta
Thanks.
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 04:52:46AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 02:44:13PM -0800, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > Request: refine install script for newbie
> >
> > When display manager are installed, script rightfully asks which display
> > manager to install using insta
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 04:52:46AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 02:44:13PM -0800, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > Request: refine install script for newbie
> >
> > When display manager are installed, script rightfully asks which display
> > manager to install using install script
On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 02:44:13PM -0800, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Request: refine install script for newbie
>
> When display manager are installed, script rightfully asks which display
> manager to install using install script. Great feature but one more
> twist shall make many newbie shut-up crying.
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 04:52:46AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 02:44:13PM -0800, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > Request: refine install script for newbie
> >
> > When display manager are installed, script rightfully asks which display
> > manager to install using install script
On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 02:44:13PM -0800, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Request: refine install script for newbie
>
> When display manager are installed, script rightfully asks which display
> manager to install using install script. Great feature but one more
> twist shall make many newbie shut-up crying.
#include
* Osamu Aoki [Sun, Nov 10 2002, 02:44:13PM]:
> When display manager are installed, script rightfully asks which display
> manager to install using install script. Great feature but one more
> twist shall make many newbie shut-up crying. here is my suggestion:
>
> In the dialogue to ch
#include
* Osamu Aoki [Sun, Nov 10 2002, 02:44:13PM]:
> When display manager are installed, script rightfully asks which display
> manager to install using install script. Great feature but one more
> twist shall make many newbie shut-up crying. here is my suggestion:
>
> In the dialogue to ch
Package: xdm
Version: 4.2.1-3
Severity: wishlist
Request: refine install script for newbie
When display manager are installed, script rightfully asks which display
manager to install using install script. Great feature but one more
twist shall make many newbie shut-up crying. here is my suggest
Package: xdm
Version: 4.2.1-3
Severity: wishlist
Request: refine install script for newbie
When display manager are installed, script rightfully asks which display
manager to install using install script. Great feature but one more
twist shall make many newbie shut-up crying. here is my suggest
On Wed, 1 Aug 2001 17:01:48 +0200 (MEST), Raymond Häb said:
> Hallo,
>
> I wonder why you don't include xf 4.1 in sid. I only find 4.0.3 there.
> Did i just look at the wrong place, or are there any reasons for
> staying at 4.0.3.
> The reason why i ask is, that it has (or at least should h
On Wed, 1 Aug 2001 17:01:48 +0200 (MEST), Raymond Häb said:
> Hallo,
>
> I wonder why you don't include xf 4.1 in sid. I only find 4.0.3 there.
> Did i just look at the wrong place, or are there any reasons for
> staying at 4.0.3.
> The reason why i ask is, that it has (or at least should
Hallo,
I wonder why you don't include xf 4.1 in sid. I only find 4.0.3 there.
Did i just look at the wrong place, or are there any reasons for
staying at 4.0.3.
The reason why i ask is, that it has (or at least should have :-) better
support for my geforce 2 mx card.
Thanx,
Ray
Hallo,
I wonder why you don't include xf 4.1 in sid. I only find 4.0.3 there.
Did i just look at the wrong place, or are there any reasons for
staying at 4.0.3.
The reason why i ask is, that it has (or at least should have :-) better
support for my geforce 2 mx card.
Thanx,
Ray
--
To UNSUBS
63 matches
Mail list logo
