Hi,
> > While messing with 4.8-RC2 I found some files that have executable flag set
> > even though they shouldn't have that flag.
> > I'm pretty sure I've missed quite a few (as I haven't checked all files)
> > but here are a few of the messed up files.
> when thay are on the cvs we need to run
Juan Jose Pablos wrote:
> I did that already, but it did not change anything. maybe we should
> migrate to SVN.
I have a vague memory CVS won't update the permissions on files that are
already checked out. Do a web search, you should be able to find
something on CVS and permissions.
In any cas
Brian May escribió:
> Juan Jose Pablos wrote:
>> when thay are on the cvs we need to run a command to restore the file
>> permission. Do you know by change the command?
>
> I think it basically is chmod, run on the server of the appropriate CVS
> file. This is just one of CVS well known limitati
Juan Jose Pablos wrote:
> when thay are on the cvs we need to run a command to restore the file
> permission. Do you know by change the command?
I think it basically is chmod, run on the server of the appropriate CVS
file. This is just one of CVS well known limitations...
Brian May
--
Jens Geile escribió:
> Hi,
>
>> I have upload the second test candidate for the next release:
>> http://unattended.sourceforge.net/testing/48_rc2/
>> Test on your systems. If not mayor bugs are found it. This file will became
>> 4.8.
> While messing with 4.8-RC2 I found some files that have execu
Hi,
> I have upload the second test candidate for the next release:
> http://unattended.sourceforge.net/testing/48_rc2/
> Test on your systems. If not mayor bugs are found it. This file will became
> 4.8.
While messing with 4.8-RC2 I found some files that have executable flag set
even though the
Jon Wilson escribió:
>
> No, I agree that conservative is a good step (I'm not really a fan of the
>
> breaking away from the kernel development branch, for instance). As long
>
> as there are frequent updates to the released unattended versions (4.5 was
>
> around for a long long time) it sho
Jon Wilson escribió:
> I'm unable to compile glibc on rhel5.1 & fedora 8 box's. If I change it
> from 2.3.6 to 2.5, it compiles just fine. Also, glibc-linuxthreads does
> have a 2.5 version (but no 2.4 version, which is a bit odd).
>
> If I'm the only one that has this problem, then I guess I'
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 05:16:31PM -0600, Jon Wilson enlightened us:
> Juan Jose Pablos wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I have upload the second test candidate for the next release:
> >
> > http://unattended.sourceforge.net/testing/48_rc2/
> >
> > Test on your systems. If not mayor bugs are found it. This fil
Juan Jose Pablos wrote:
> Hi,
> I have upload the second test candidate for the next release:
>
> http://unattended.sourceforge.net/testing/48_rc2/
>
> Test on your systems. If not mayor bugs are found it. This file will
> became 4.8.
>
> I put a Release Note on the wiki for updating information
10 matches
Mail list logo
