>Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 23:41:16 +0100
>From: Pascal Terjan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>In fact dkms is not available on 10.0 but only on Corporate 3.0
>Development CD which is based on 10.0, and as I usually do not use
>real 10.0 I did not notice this before.
>I'll package it another way as soon as I fi
On 11/29/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >From: Gwenole Beauchesne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >Use DKMS for kqemu modules?
> >
>
> I would like to try this way on my Mandrake 10.0, but I'm not been
> able to find a DKMS RPM for this version (seems like DKMS has been
> introduced wit
Gwenole Beauchesne wrote:
Hi,
Case in point : I distinctly reember reading a convoluted thread in one
of the Debian lists about this /etc/alternative issue for gcc... Was I
drunk ? Or what ?
I don't know what all this rant is about
The idiocy of having a system perfectly able to handle a
>From: Gwenole Beauchesne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Use DKMS for kqemu modules?
>
I would like to try this way on my Mandrake 10.0, but I'm not been
able to find a DKMS RPM for this version (seems like DKMS has been
introduced with the 10.1 release of Mdk), so the Pterjean's RPMs
of kqemu for Mdk 10.0
Hi,
> Case in point : I distinctly reember reading a convoluted thread in one
> of the Debian lists about this /etc/alternative issue for gcc... Was I
> drunk ? Or what ?
I don't know what all this rant is about but it's always best to keep the
system compiler as chosen by the distributor. If
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
[ Snip ... ]
[Completely incorrect rant snipped]
I wish you were right... Alas, I stand by my words : the attitude of a
minority of Debian developpers is on the line of "If it was hard to
write, it should be hard to use". Unfortunately, this minority has a
serious
