On 10/27/2014 10:20 PM, Martinx - ジェームズ thiagocmarti...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hey guys,
I would like to evaluate both `eudev` (or any other *udev), plus
`uselessd`, on Debian sid/testing.
Lets do it?!
I' m planning to achieve, at least, CGroups Process with `uselessd`
(no init scripts).
On 10/25/2014 12:45 PM, Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 10/25/2014 09:57 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 10/7/2014 6:03 PM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday 07 Oct 2014 22:56:28 Mike Gilbert wrote:
Quite the opposite. Ideally, you should remove the PORTDIR setting
from
On 10/26/2014 3:17 PM, Jean-Marc jean-m...@6jf.be wrote:
Thank so much for your answers.
After reading them in the list archives, I think I will go for:
- no dedicated partition for /boot;
For my new debian groupware server (sogo, working great so far), I just
installed with the defaults,
On 10/7/2014 6:03 PM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday 07 Oct 2014 22:56:28 Mike Gilbert wrote:
Quite the opposite. Ideally, you should remove the PORTDIR setting
from make.conf. repos.conf is the newer, more flexible way to
configure it.
Unfortunately, that will break some
Hello,
Googling didn't seem to reveal a definitive answer...
I'm still very new to the debian world, so... anyway...
I just updated my wheezy install from 7.5 to 7.7, but I'm surprised that
I wasn't prompted to reboot, as the kernel image was updated:
linux-headers-3.2.0-4-amd64
On 10/25/2014 10:41 AM, Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sb, 25 oct 14, 09:07:56, Tanstaafl wrote:
I just updated my wheezy install from 7.5 to 7.7, but I'm surprised that
I wasn't prompted to reboot, as the kernel image was updated:
As of Jessie there is 'needrestart
On 10/25/2014 11:35 AM, Sven Hartge s...@svenhartge.de wrote:
Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
So apparently I need to reboot to be on the new kernel image... but,
since I wasn't prompted, it apparently isn't important to do so right
away?
Just trying to get my head around
On 10/22/2014 12:01 AM, Johnny Rosenberg gurus.knu...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, it seems that LibreOffice Calc mess up my dialogues. I had
three dialogues and today all the names of all their buttons were
replaced with some default crap.
Sounds like you are using some macros?
And that the
On 10/23/2014 4:10 PM, koanhead koanh...@riseup.net wrote:
I propose OpenRC, having recently tried it. So far I'm liking how it
works, and it solves most of the problems I had with sysvinit. It's not
a replacement for PID1, and is supposed to be compatible with arbitrary
PID1 programs
On 10/24/2014 4:49 AM, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
j.deboynepollard-newsgro...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Tanstaafl:
And why was OPenRC not a contender?
Your question takes a falsehood as its premise. It actually was,
contrary to what M. Popescu dismissively stated. Several members
On 10/21/2014 4:21 PM, Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com wrote:
Upstart was the only real contender to systemd at the time of the
evaluation by the Technical Committee, but it has or is being replaced
by systemd everywhere.
And why was OPenRC not a contender?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On 10/20/2014 3:45 PM, Patrick Bartek nemomm...@gmail.com wrote:
After much vitriolic gnashing of teeth from those opposed to systemd,
I wonder... What is a better alternative? And it can't be sysvinit.
Yes. Syvinit still works, but it is after all 20 years old. It's been
patched and
On 10/20/2014 10:36 PM, Martinx - ジェームズ thiagocmarti...@gmail.com
wrote:
1- Fork udev (out from systemd's tree or before it got merged / engulfed);
Maybe Gentoo's eudev would be a good place to start with that.
I also don't see why OpenRC isn't on the list of obvious choices. It is
the default
On 10/21/2014 1:08 AM, Steve Litt sl...@troubleshooters.com wrote:
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard, what's your impression of the relative boot
time of nosh vs systemd?
The *only* real world scenario that I can see where the boot speed
difference is only really meaningful in the world of cloud based
On 10/21/2014 11:19 AM, Liam Proven lpro...@gmail.com wrote:
A blog post explaining why it isn't mandatory, the utter futility of
the fork and more besides, clearly and simply.
http://www.vitavonni.de/blog/201410/2014102101-avoiding-systemd.html
Doesn't address - and nothing can
On 10/20/2014 7:18 AM, Joe j...@jretrading.com wrote:
I think it's generally an admonishment not to get involved in relaying.
No, it is generally an admonishment not to get involved with relaying if
you do not have *access* to validate recipients.
There are multiple ways this can be achieved.
On 10/20/2014 6:58 AM, Peter Buzanits buzan...@gmail.com wrote:
VMware ESX 4.0.0 Build 236512
That is really old...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
On 10/20/2014 9:39 AM, Peter Buzanits buzan...@gmail.com wrote:
Am 2014-10-20 um 15:17 schrieb Tanstaafl:
On 10/20/2014 6:58 AM, Peter Buzanits buzan...@gmail.com wrote:
VMware ESX 4.0.0 Build 236512
That is really old...
You think that the hypervisor could cause problems in the kernel
On 10/17/2014 9:24 PM, lee l...@yagibdah.de wrote:
You do not accept messages you can not deliver unless you are relaying
them.
Absolutely wrong, this rule fully applies to relays just as it does
final destination servers.
Postfix allows you to do this even if you are unable to get/maintain a
On 10/17/2014 3:42 PM, Ric Moore wayward4...@gmail.com wrote:
The fun part will be to see who actually steps up to the plate to do all
of the extra work. Especially amongst all of those pledged seconds. I
hope someone is keeping a list. :) Ric
From what I read, it will be one all debian devs
On 10/13/2014 4:21 AM, Joe j...@jretrading.com wrote:
The intention is that the spam emails be accepted by a catch-all
domain-wide mail server, then later bounced by the one that holds the
mailboxes and knows the addresses are invalid.
And that, by definition, is backscatter, which will
On 10/17/2014 12:21 PM, Steve Litt sl...@troubleshooters.com wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 07:54:06 -0700 (PDT)
Rusi Mody rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, October 17, 2014 8:00:02 PM UTC+5:30, Rob Owens wrote:
- Original Message -
Now let's see what happens with this!
On 10/17/2014 12:03 PM, Joe j...@jretrading.com wrote:
My point is that a mail server which is accepting mail for a domain
needs to know the valid recipient list, and to *reject*, not bounce,
mail for non-existent users during the SMTP transaction. Not
controversial at all.
Ok, then no, you
On 10/17/2014 1:01 PM, The Wanderer wande...@fastmail.fm wrote:
On 10/17/2014 at 12:38 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 10/17/2014 12:21 PM, Steve Litt sl...@troubleshooters.com
wrote:
Thank you Ian, and the seconders, and everyone who is speaking up
for (what I call) sanity.
Still only 4
On 10/17/2014 1:29 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
I finished the thread right before I posted, and there were only 4 seconds.
Guess I missed some sub threads or something...
Oh well, glad to see it will get a vote...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ
Anyone ever encountered this?
I finally decided to convert a few of our PDF forms into PDF fillable
forms, and thought this was going to be easy.
No luck with the existing documents, so I tried with a brand new blank
writer document...
I open the Form Controls Toolbar, but when I try to drag
On 10/16/2014 7:32 AM, Sophie gautier.sop...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Charles,
Le 16/10/2014 13:28, Tanstaafl a écrit :
I open the Form Controls Toolbar, but when I try to drag one of the
fields, it just doesn't work.
Once selected, draw the control in the document, it will appear then.
Hah
On 10/16/2014 7:39 AM, Sophie gautier.sop...@gmail.com wrote:
You're welcome :) to access the properties of the control, right click
on it and choose Control. In the dialog you have a lot of things you can
set.
Awesome...
One question though.
In my first test, when a user dbl-clicks the
On 10/16/2014 8:04 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
Is there a way to force it to act like a template, and open a
new/unsaved copy in fillable mode?
Hmmm... but I would also like the newly created/saved copy to *not* act
like a template any longer (s0, basically the same way
On 10/15/2014 3:13 PM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
Tanstaafl wrote:
1. email to invalid recipients should be rejected at the RCPT-TO stage,
Easier said then done - at least when a server does relaying, but
clearly ideal when possible.
No, it is 100% easily done
Please do not send to me directly, I am on the list.
On 10/15/2014 3:15 PM, Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net wrote:
On 10/15/2014 12:40 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
Easy enough to prove. By all means, quote the actual text of me saying
this was 'OK'...
You said:
However, once a message has
On 10/15/2014 4:44 PM, Joe j...@jretrading.com wrote:
However, if the Reply-To: is forged, i.e. if it is spam, the
alternative is considerably less OK. Bouncing a spam message simply
delivers *the* *entire* *message* to an innocent third party, having
been laundered through your (presumably
On 10/15/2014 4:58 PM, Joe j...@jretrading.com wrote:
It's worth some effort, at the moment it is the single most effective
anti-spam measure. If you outsource your mail, it's worth going to some
trouble to find a hosting company who will hold and accept updates for
a list of valid recipients.
On 10/15/2014 5:12 PM, Brad Rogers b...@fineby.me.uk wrote:
Send an email with a large attachment(1) and there are quite a few
servers that will silently drop it.
Anyone who does that is breaking SMTP. If you don't want messages over a
certain size, REJECT them, but absolutely do not EVER
On 10/15/2014 8:37 PM, Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net wrote:
Tanstaafl couldn't answer it, and you can't either, because it's not
violating any.
I did answer it, you just ignored it or don't understand it.
Quote:
You do not have to violate an RFC to break SMTP.
Here is a real world
On 10/16/2014 7:31 AM, Chris Bannister cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 06:50:01AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
Anyone who runs a mail server and doesn't monitor the postmaster address
shouldn't be running a mail server.
Tell that to yahoo, they *don't seem* to have
On 10/16/2014 7:40 AM, Joel Rees joel.r...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 10/15/2014 8:37 PM, Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net wrote:
Tanstaafl couldn't answer it, and you can't either, because it's not
violating any
On 10/14/2014 1:58 PM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
Well, this really is OT for debian-users, but Turns out that SMTP
WAS/IS intended to be reliable.
Reliable, absolutely. 100% reliable? That simply isn't possible when
people are involved in the equation (people
On 10/14/2014 12:03 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
The 'silly statements' reference was about your suggestion
that it is in any way shape or form 'ok' to *accept* mail to invalid
recipients then send it to dev/null.
Incidentally, yes there may be some circumstances where
On 10/14/2014 3:28 PM, Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net wrote:
On 10/14/2014 12:03 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 10/14/2014 11:17 AM, Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net wrote:
On 10/14/2014 8:05 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
If you think I'm kidding, please by all means go make these silly
statements
On 10/14/2014 3:20 PM, Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net wrote:
On 10/14/2014 11:24 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
However, once a message has been accepted - ie, *after* the DATA phase
is complete, it should never be bounced, it should be delivered - or,
worse, quarantined, or worst case, deleted
On 10/15/2014 12:25 PM, The Wanderer wande...@fastmail.fm wrote:
On 10/15/2014 at 12:11 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
You're limiting it too much. From Dictionary.com:
obscurity
noun, plural obscurities.
1. the state or quality of being obscure.
2. the condition of being unknown:
...
That's
On 10/15/2014 12:06 PM, Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net wrote:
On 10/15/2014 8:14 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 10/14/2014 3:28 PM, Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net wrote:
But you just said it was OK to delete emails.
Please don't misquote me. I said it was the *worst case*, meaning, only
On 10/15/2014 12:50 PM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
I'll close by noting that this branch of discussion started with a focus
on silently dropping spam, and whether that's a violation of standards.
Actually, no, this branch started with a focus on whether or not it is a
On 10/13/2014 7:47 PM, Joel Rees joel.r...@gmail.com wrote:
There is a header for requesting automatic confirmation of delivery,
but it tends to be abused by malicious junkmailers (spammers). MUAs
are supposed to be able to disable it, but I haven't seen that option
in an MUA settings dialog
On 10/13/2014 9:53 PM, Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net wrote:
Not a grey area at all. ...dropping mail without notification of the
sender is permitted As for the ...long tradition and community
expectations... - that's nice, but according to some estimates,
spammers now account for
On 10/14/2014 10:15 AM, Chris Bannister cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 08:05:00AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
To bounce all of those invalid addresses not only would further
increase the amount of junk on the internet,
That is pure and absolute nonsense. The vast
On 10/14/2014 10:52 AM, Jonathan Dowland j...@debian.org wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:48:38AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
Rejecting will actually *reduce* traffic, because it doesn't accept the
entire messages, it slams the door at the RCPT-TO stage.
Rejection can happen after the DATA phase
On 10/14/2014 11:09 AM, Ansgar Burchardt ans...@43-1.org wrote:
In a quest to ensure your personal happiness the systemd maintainers
took your problem and changed udev to assign predictable names to
network interfaces.
And which resulted in much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
--
To
On 10/14/2014 11:17 AM, Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net wrote:
On 10/14/2014 8:05 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
If you think I'm kidding, please by all means go make these silly
statements on the postfix list and I'll just sit and watch the fun.
You don't read very well. This has nothing to do
On 10/14/2014 1:31 PM, Joel Rees joel.r...@gmail.com wrote:
You're talking past each other.
No, we're not, Jerry is arguing arguing against recipient validation on
mail servers, and I'm correcting some of the bad/mis-information he is
relying on when trying to support his argument.
Still, the
On 10/8/2014 10:36 PM, Steve Litt sl...@troubleshooters.com wrote:
If what you did works for everybody when Jessie goes stable, you've
just singlehandedly ended this whole argument.
Not really.
Just because it can be done easily now, doesn't mean it will be as easy
- or even possible - a year
On 10/7/2014 5:56 PM, Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote:
Quite the opposite. Ideally, you should remove the PORTDIR setting
from make.conf. repos.conf is the newer, more flexible way to
configure it.
Ok, did I miss a news item on this?
Is this discussed in detail somewhere?
On 10/7/2014 7:09 PM, John Holland jholl...@vin-dit.org wrote:
The license of ZFS makes it impossible to be part of
the kernel per se.
I have read multiple threads that explain why this is not true.
don't understand them, wish I did...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On 10/4/2014 1:37 PM, Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote:
The KDE release structure has evolved[1], decoupling the release cycle
of the Platform, Workspace, and Applications. This means that there is
no longer a single Software Compilation in the same way there was with
KDE 4.
On 10/5/2014 11:01 AM, Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote:
I'd be interested to know what KDE negatives you've
experienced/heard in the past though.
Bloat, buggy/unstable ever since the move from KDE3 to KDE4 (and never
really gotten any better over time), etc...
But of course there
-devs like yours
truly.
Thanks again for taking the time to explain this so clearly.
On 10/3/2014 8:26 PM, V Stuart Foote vstuart.fo...@utsa.edu wrote:
@Charles, *,
Tanstaafl wrote
Also, I'm confused...
Jan-Marek in the bug comment on August 17th - well before the 'Hard code
freeze
On 10/4/2014 6:44 AM, Tom Collins tomcollins...@mail.com wrote:
and depreciating (as if they have the right to do that) many
programs that rely on gtk2 and non-syst__d.
peeve
It is 'deprecating', not 'depreciating' (an accounting term).
/peeve
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On 10/4/2014 9:33 AM, Jeff Bauer jwba...@charter.net wrote:
Either could be accurately used. To wit:
Maybe in general/non computer terminology, but not in with respect to
computer software...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deprecation
Fair enough. I guess that belief was a remnant from the Sun/Openoffice days.
My apologies for a huge, incorrect assumption.
Also, I just realized there is a distinction that I have been making,
but that may have been missed and so may be causing a disconnect.
That distinction is, code that
it for
themselves?
Regards from
Tom :)
On 3 October 2014 11:55, Michael Meeks michael.me...@collabora.com
mailto:michael.me...@collabora.com wrote:
Hi Tanstaafl / Florian,
On Thu, 2014-10-02 at 09:50 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
You obviously haven't read this entire thread
Hi Michael,
Thanks, mostly agree with your thoughts, with two comments...
On 10/3/2014 6:55 AM, Michael Meeks michael.me...@collabora.com wrote:
B. It is true that there is a sense in which large corporate
users of LibreOffice capture a lot of benefit and cost saving
from that - and a
On 10/2/2014 8:15 PM, Paul paulste...@afrihost.co.za wrote:
I did say it was not a major thing to be guilty of, and I really mean
that. These things happen, and a simple oops, my bad, I'll fix that
is really all that I feel is needed here.
I agree - but they didn't. Instead, users are told
On 10/2/2014 3:11 PM, V Stuart Foote vstuart.fo...@utsa.edu wrote:
Charles S. (aka Tanstaafl) was given instructions
and has agreed to do what needs to be done and review the corrected function
for his use case with a current build of master (4.4.0alpha0+)--and respond
in the fdo#76565
On 10/3/2014 12:36 PM, Tom Davies tomc...@gmail.com wrote:
It might be good to test-drive the alpha and beta release on 1 or 2
machines because they are generally stable enough for your own usage.
I'm doing that now with this release - will change to a beta once it is
available.
Obviously
On 10/3/2014 12:35 PM, Florian Reisinger flo...@libreoffice.org wrote:
Q: Why do not get bugs fixed at the moment they are reported?
A: Before devs see the bug, it goes through the hands of QA. We are
a small team and have a lot of backlog on reported bugs. (More bugs are
reported than we are
On 10/3/2014 12:25 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 10/2/2014 3:11 PM, V Stuart Foote vstuart.fo...@utsa.edu wrote:
Charles S. (aka Tanstaafl) was given instructions
and has agreed to do what needs to be done and review the corrected function
for his use case with a current
On 10/3/2014 1:27 PM, Florian Reisinger flo...@libreoffice.org wrote:
Bugs are bugs. Bugs are not meant to be introduced.
I agree... your point?
For developers and end users it one not matter, if the bug is in new
code or not.
True enough.
Even if it seems to be in new code, how do you
Hello,
Almost not worth mentioning, but...
Fyi, I just updated to 1.4.2 on one of my gentoo systems, and noted a
typo in the comments...
# The default value is '1024000'.
#
#SUSPSCAN_MAXSIZE=1024
There is one less zero in the comment for the default value than there
should be...
;)
On 10/2/2014 7:14 AM, John Horne john.ho...@plymouth.ac.uk wrote:
On Thu, 2014-10-02 at 06:35 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
Hello,
Almost not worth mentioning, but...
Fyi, I just updated to 1.4.2 on one of my gentoo systems, and noted a
typo in the comments...
# The default value is '1024000
On 10/1/2014 11:36 AM, jonathon toki.kant...@gmail.com wrote:
On October 1, 2014 8:03:05 AM PDT, Tanstaafl wrote:
Irrelevant. I cannot install 'Daily builds' on 60+ PCs.
What you do is once a week install and test a daily build, verifying
that issues that affect your organization have been
On 10/1/2014 9:33 PM, jonathon toki.kant...@gmail.com wrote:
What I describe is what any sysadmin worth their salt wold do, with
_all_ of the FLOSS an, where an when available, non-FLOSS, that is
deployed throughout the organization they work for.
Oh, I do, but I'm a one man shop, my time is
On 10/2/2014 1:22 AM, Florian Reisinger flo...@libreoffice.org wrote:
I am sorry if the following sounds a bit sharp: do not rant. That
won't help! If you want to have this bug fixes, pay for the fix. (Or
test if works on master I guess this bug should be fixed
relatively quick.
I am not
On 10/2/2014 4:34 AM, Charles-H. Schulz
charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
The real extortion here is someone who expects people to work for his
own needs for free.
I am *not* talking about enhancement/feature requests, I am talking
about a major regression that should have never
On 10/2/2014 8:50 AM, Werner werner...@gmx.ch wrote:
His pet bug has a fix but he is refusing to test it.
Please refrain from posting falsehoods (you don't have a clue what I am
or have been doing).
The point, again, is it is irrelevant if there is a TEST BUILD that is
fixed. The point is we
On 10/2/2014 8:58 AM, Werner werner...@gmx.ch wrote:
No one suggested that users should have to pay.
You obviously haven't read this entire thread. Florian is trying to
extort money from me to fix this major regression.
But it might be interesting for a certain user to get a
Thanks Stuart,
I will do this asap - but most likely won't have time until this weekend.
That said - it is a simple test - either you can paste into Input
Fields, or you can't.
So, yes, I will confirm this at the latest this weekend.
Thanks for the links, I'll bookmark them for future
On 10/2/2014 9:25 AM, Werner werner...@gmx.ch wrote:
Most normal users will unfortunately have to be more patient until
their pet bug gets fixed.
Maybe english isn't your first language, and you don't realize how
condescending your comments are?
This isn't *just* 'someone's pet bug'. This is
On 10/2/2014 7:34 AM, Sophie gautier.sop...@gmail.com wrote:
He is not blamed for bringing his pet bug, but for not being proactive
on it and for waiting that a volunteer take care of it without helping
in any way to have it solved.
I have helped in every way that I can.
1. I am not a coder,
On 10/1/2014 11:18 AM, Werner werner...@gmx.ch wrote:
On 10/1/2014 17:03, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 10/1/2014 9:25 AM, Werner werner...@gmx.ch wrote:
On 10/1/2014 14:47, Tanstaafl wrote:
I didn't file it (it was already filed), but it is:
https://www.libreoffice.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=76565
On 10/2/2014 10:01 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
Anything else is just begging for ... well, threads like this one.
I think everything has been said that needs to be said, so unless
someone else says something really ridiculous that hasn't already been
countered, I'll just let
On 10/2/2014 10:37 AM, Charles-H. Schulz
charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
That said, maybe you didn't mean it as it sounded, so I'll give you the
benefit of the doubt...
Forgive me if I'm intrusive, but there is something I actually do not
understand in your situation. If you are
On 10/2/2014 12:04 PM, jonathon toki.kant...@gmail.com wrote:
The devs have no idea how people use the product, and thus only test
a minuscle subset of available features, functions, and
capabilities.
Relevant and true to an extent and in some cases, certainly, but I'm
sorry, cut/copy/paste
On 9/30/2014 5:50 PM, Paul paulste...@afrihost.co.za wrote:
Personally I would vote for something like Stable-Current or
Stable-Features and Stable-Mature, or terms in that vein, but I
have to agree, choosing those sorts of terms would be more in line with
the explanations of what they are
On 10/1/2014 5:06 AM, Charles-H. Schulz
charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
I don't see these on the Firefox site, I see Firefox, Firefox Beta and
Firefox Aurora, and these seem to have a passable explanation. I would
have liked a slightly better, or more in-depth one, but at least I
frustrated with it due to the misuse of threads!
On 10/1/2014 12:27, Tanstaafl wrote:
rant
Charles, fyi, in our office, we are stuck on 4.1.6 because of a major
regression introduced in 4.2 that is still there today.
When our first user reported this after I started updating everyone (at
about
On 10/1/2014 8:21 AM, Werner werner...@gmx.ch wrote:
Hi,
On 10/1/2014 14:04, Tanstaafl wrote:
Hi Werner,
This regression has already been discussed here, with essentially the
same result (fix it yourself, pay someone else to fix it, or shut up
about it)...
That is not Sophie's view
Not to mention this one:
https://www.libreoffice.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65205
--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more:
Hi Tom,
Thanks for the suggestions, but I assure you, I have had many, many
conversations with him about this over these past 15 years I've been
managing his systems.
On 10/1/2014 9:03 AM, Tom Davies tomc...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi :)
I think probably the best way to handle it is to arrange a
On 10/1/2014 9:25 AM, Werner werner...@gmx.ch wrote:
On 10/1/2014 14:47, Tanstaafl wrote:
I didn't file it (it was already filed), but it is:
https://www.libreoffice.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=76565
Have you tested the daily build which included the patch committed on
2014-8-17
On 10/1/2014 9:36 AM, Tom Davies tomc...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe we should rename Still to Eggs and change Fresh to Omelette.
Both have advantages. trying to say that Omelette is really unbroken
eggs seems daft to me.
I'm a steak guy, so I prefer:
'Still' Sirloin
'Fresh' Tenderloin (or
On 10/1/2014 12:54 PM, Florian Reisinger flo...@libreoffice.org wrote:
9 bugs for 30k €. That is a fair price...
Continuing reading the thread now...
PS: If a volunteer does not tackle your pet bug, you should get
someone to fix it (search for libreoffice L3 support for other
service
On 9/29/2014 2:55 PM, Tom Davies tomc...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, Fresh is stable but because it's had new features added we can
expect to find that some things that don't so well in Fresh and yet still
find that they work perfectly fine in Still.
To many of us that all sounds like a lot of
On 9/30/2014 8:54 AM, Charles-H. Schulz
charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
I am sorry to say this, but what is ridiculous here is the inability of
some to even understand what is being discussed.
Oh, I understand what is being discussed.
What you don't understand is the complaint.
On 9/30/2014 9:53 AM, Tom Davies tomc...@gmail.com wrote:
I think people are talking about a single installer that does the whole
job. Something that normal users can just double-click on, rather than a
long set of complicated instructions.
Yes. The installer should automatically detect the
On 9/30/2014 10:41 AM, Sophie gautier.sop...@gmail.com wrote:
What makes no sense for me is to refuse something without even having a
look at it.
What am I refusing to look at? The complicated instructions?
Or are you saying that the installer already works as I described? If it
does,
On 7/30/2014 11:01 AM, Sophie gautier.sop...@gmail.com wrote:
However, if you want to know more about what they are doing to improve
the quality of LibreOffice, I recommend you read:
https://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/2014-07-29-under-the-hood-4-3.html
I think it answers your questions about
On 8/26/2014 7:49 AM, Pedro pedl...@gmail.com wrote:
There WILL be a 4.2.7 version. It is scheduled for late October
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan
People have to hang on to the 4.2 branch until 4.3 reaches stability from
regressions/bugs added (by 4.3.4?)
Or some people have
Is it possible to do this?
Thanks...
On 8/23/2014 8:16 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/08/2014 12:34, Tanstaafl wrote:
Is it possible to do this?
Not directly. I'm assuming you mean packages you built yourself and
quick-pkg'ed them, not something available as a -bin
Correct... I have buildpkg feature
501 - 600 of 2231 matches
Mail list logo
