On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, Steve Langasek wrote:
SLOn Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
SL
SL Hamish Moffatt wrote:
SL There IS a debconf question about it.. it's not like it just does it to
you
SL without asking. Maybe the debconf priority of the question is too low if
SL too many people
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 11:03:57PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
The display manager
starts the X server, not the other way around, which means that the X server
has no control over the display manager's behavior; and the authentication
failure you reported came from the display manager and
Eray Ozkural (exa) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 11:03:57PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
The display manager
starts the X server, not the other way around, which means that the X server
has no control over the display manager's behavior; and the authentication
failure
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 05:43:52PM +1000, Jason Henry Parker wrote:
Eray Ozkural (exa) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hmm. Well, I know about that. The display managers start all right. The
problem occurs when I login. I'd tried xdm, wings and gdm. How come all
of them failed then?
Why does
* Eray Ozkural (exa) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Users here are not at all interested in the psychological state of a
particular developer. On the contrary, every developer should be
required to deal with every bug report in an objective manner.
Inappropriate dismissal or incorrect evaluation of bug
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 05:43:52PM +1000, Jason Henry Parker wrote:
``Banks *are* bastards.'' -- John Laws
Err, yeah.. takes one to know one?
Hamish, glad we don't have him down here.
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 04:40:03AM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 11:34:04PM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
If you call your insults to another contributor to debian deserved rant,
then I'd think you are either misinterpreting your status
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 11:36:24AM +0100, Martin Bialasinski wrote:
You behaviour wrt bugs is more than lacking. You report something,
without making a report that has enough relevant info to deal with it
(read [EMAIL PROTECTED] again and understand it). When
asked about specific info, you
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 11:57:08PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Debian does not try to regulate the behaviour of its maintainers,
except where the quality of the distribution itself is involved.
What are your contributions to Debian Eray?
Non-regulation is a false claim. Maintainers are
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 08:34:31PM +0200, Eray Ozkural wrote:
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 12:01:42PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
I don't know why you think your personal bug reports are so important
that they demand the attention of not only the package maintainer, but
*also* everyone
Branden Robinson wrote:
Ah, so you have a time machine which you used to tell your earlier self
that there was going to be trouble from me over bug 81397?
No comments. :)
You CC'ed your *initial report* to debian-devel and debian-x, before I had
anything at all to say on the subject.
[ No need to Cc: me, I do read debian-devel ]
* Eray Ozkural (exa) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I will cc to debian-devel only when there is an affirmed
conflict with the developer about the bug report, OK?
Your behaviour on this bugreport is a deja-vu of your behaviour on
#80544.
I
Hi Martin,
please cc to me
Martin Bialasinski wrote:
I have developed a great liking for bug reports somehow.
Then you just need to develope some skill for a) analysing bugs and
writing useful reports and b) not going crazy when developers ask
further question if they don't have a
Eray Ozkural (exa) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 11:36:24AM +0100, Martin Bialasinski wrote:
You behaviour wrt bugs is more than lacking. You report something,
without making a report that has enough relevant info to deal with it
(read [EMAIL PROTECTED] again and
Hamish == Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hamish On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 05:43:52PM +1000, Jason Henry
Hamish Parker wrote:
``Banks *are* bastards.'' -- John Laws
Hamish Err, yeah.. takes one to know one?
Stop it. You're both making me home-sick :)
--
Stephen
A
exa == exa Eray writes:
exa bug report? BTW, I'm not a professional ignorami whatever
exa that means, dear literary pioneer of the list.
Correct. You are (or would be) a professional ignoramus. Ignorami is
the plural form, just like hippopotami radii are the plural forms of
reassign 81397 gdm
thanks
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 05:20:42PM +0200, Eray 'exa' Ozkural wrote:
Package: xserver-xfree86
Version: 4.0.1-9
Severity: important
When I try to start X server as a user, the X server complains that
the authorization has failed and terminates. Likewise when
trying
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 10:36:33AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
reassign 81397 gdm
thanks
hi branden,
if you read the bug report carefully, you'll see that
I complain about not being able to login from *anywhere*
including gdm.
I'm working on it now, and it seems I can't start X
as a
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001, Eray Ozkural wrote:
Anyway, here is what I get:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ startx
X: user not authorized to run the X server, aborting.
xinit: unexpected signal 2
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$
Is this normal? Users could start their X servers before
upgrading a couple of
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 05:18:56PM +0100, Samuel Hocevar wrote:
You might be interested in RTFMing, or checking past bugs, or having
a look at /etc/X11/Xwrapper.config.
I did RTFM mf. Got any idea why this is happening? The problem is that
we just upgraded, didn't alter anything and ended
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001, Eray Ozkural wrote:
I did RTFM mf. Got any idea why this is happening? The problem is that
we just upgraded, didn't alter anything and ended up with a broken
xinit. How can this be possible?
Dunno. Shit may happen, you know. But I don't think it's worth Cc:ing
This is my answer to a private mail (it seems...) I don't want to talk
about these in private. Please note the reason why I carried this bug
report to the list.
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 02:59:31PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
You've already gotten into Branden's permanent shitlist.
On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, Eray Ozkural wrote:
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 05:18:56PM +0100, Samuel Hocevar wrote:
You might be interested in RTFMing, or checking past bugs, or having
a look at /etc/X11/Xwrapper.config.
I did RTFM mf.
Clearly not, or you would know that XFree4 requires explicit
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 07:29:35PM +0200, Eray Ozkural wrote:
What is this supposed to mean? There are many users here suffering from this
problem since this is a multi-user system and none of them have the time
to learn the peculiarities of x. They, and I, just want to use this stuff
and I
This is my answer to a private mail (it seems...) I don't want to talk
about these in private. Please note the reason why I carried this bug
report to the list.
Well, sorry but now you're in MY non-permanent (YET) shitlist for violating
netiquette, and I'll have to acknowledge that Branden Was
Eray == Eray Ozkural (exa) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Eray This is my answer to a private mail (it seems...) I don't want to talk
Eray about these in private. Please note the reason why I carried this bug
Eray report to the list.
You have the gall to quote private email on a public
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 01:16:22PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
2a. Install (or recompile) the specific packages from unstable that fix the
bugs
That I should have done...
--
Eray (exa) Ozkural
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www:
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 12:43:15PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
You have the gall to quote private email on a public list, and
expect people to accord you any attention whatsoever? Have you ever
heard of nettiquette?
There is nothing personal in my reply and neither in quoted text
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 04:39:43PM -0200, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
Branden, please understand this for what it is meant: Branden does not like
to be poked. He seems to like even less to be poked by you. Please don't
poke him, he'll bite back and we get to watch the fallout.
Great kiss ass.
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 08:56:41PM +0200, Eray Ozkural wrote:
You have the gall to quote private email on a public list, and
expect people to accord you any attention whatsoever? Have you ever
heard of nettiquette?
There is nothing personal in my reply and neither in quoted text
On Sat, 06 Jan 2001, Eray Ozkural wrote:
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 04:39:43PM -0200, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
Branden, please understand this for what it is meant: Branden does not like
to be poked. He seems to like even less to be poked by you. Please don't
poke him, he'll bite back and we
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 04:39:43PM -0200, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
That mailing search stuff has some weird problems, yes. As for not being
written down anywhere, the postinst asks you about it. I think there is a
manpage for Xwrappers.config, but it's not installed in my system.
There is.
(this is not directed specifically at anyone)
I don't quite get this... This list is moderated. Is it not too much for
the moderator to moderate these postings and/or the user instead of
drawing hte hounds just because one guy things a bug should be in a
different spot?
Some logical discussion,
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 12:01:42PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
Branden, perhaps the XFree4 server package should check if the
previously-installed version was a 3.3 server, and offer to set up the
Xwrapper.config file appropriately?
I considered this, but judged that the cost of writing a
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 08:28:53PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
There is nothing personal in my reply and neither in quoted text and
~~
Um, there is. The thing that caused you to say Great kiss ass to hmh.
Well, his answer to the
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 09:00:38PM +0200, Eray Ozkural wrote:
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 04:39:43PM -0200, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
Branden, please understand this for what it is meant: Branden does not like
to be poked. He seems to like even less to be poked by you. Please don't
poke him,
Hi Erik!
On Sat, 06 Jan 2001, Erik Hollensbe wrote:
I don't quite get this... This list is moderated. Is it not too much for
Not that I know of.
I have a hard time finding the logic in wasting your time complaing about
how your time is being wasted. What does this solve?
Humans are hardly
Excuse me, I had not read the latter amusing part of the mail.
I'd just seen the reassign part.
It looks like Branden makes another hopeless attempt at defamation
of a bug reporter and fellow contributor with his underrated
literary skills.
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 10:36:33AM -0500, Branden
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 12:01:42PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
Clearly not, or you would know that XFree4 requires explicit configuration to
allow non-root users to run the X server. This is most definitely a FEATURE,
added to improve security, /not/ a bug.
It is different than what used
Branden Robinson wrote:
I can handle it just fine when clueful people characterize me as
psychotic. When professional ignorami like you get hysterical on two
mailing lists and the BTS simultaneously over a FAQ, because you upgraded
your production system to an unstable, unreleased operating
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 09:39:08PM +0200, Eray Ozkural [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote...
What is more, I honestly did consider if there was anything that would
be wrong to show publicly. Perhaps I assumed that everybody knew how
unnecessarily aggressive the xfree86 maintainer is, and thus nobody
On Saturday 06 January 2001 16:07, Oliver M . Bolzer wrote:
Legally, you might be allowed to (fair-use) quote private mail sent
to you as one end of the communication pipe, but we are talking
netiquette here. Really, it is not yours to decide wheter it is wrong
or not to make that mail
Erik == Erik Hollensbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Erik I don't quite get this... This list is moderated.
What in heavens name leads you to this conclusion?
manoj
--
Entreprenuer, n.: A high-rolling risk taker who would rather be a
spectacular failure than a dismal success.
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 11:34:04PM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
If you call your insults to another contributor to debian deserved rant,
then I'd think you are either misinterpreting your status or unaware of
any social skills.
I'm sorry, WHO is misinterpeting their status?
Hamish
--
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 12:01:42PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
Despite the inappropriate manner in which this is being reported (and despite
having nothing to do with the bug that was actually filed), it's true that we
won't want people upgrading from potato to woody to be caught unawares by
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 07:48:58PM +0200, Eray Ozkural wrote:
Such primitive reaction of yours is not likely to arouse interest
in prospective contributors; to join debian and to work with people
like you.
Fortunately, Eray, we're not all here for your amusement.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 07:48:58PM +0200, Eray Ozkural wrote:
Such primitive reaction of yours is not likely to arouse interest
in prospective contributors; to join debian and to work with people
like you.
Fortunately, Eray, we're not all here for your amusement.
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 04:32:23AM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Fortunately, Eray, we're not all here for your amusement.
I'm not addressing you Hamish. In all of our exchanges, there have
always been a dose of respect.
If outside comment is unwelcome, why post on
Oliver M . Bolzer wrote:
You are still not getting it, arn`t you? It is not about the content at atll,
is about quoting PRIVATE mail in PUBLIC places without asking FIRST. Sorry
for shouting, but this has to be said.
Yes, I am getting it. But I'd always thought that content did matter. [*]
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
There IS a debconf question about it.. it's not like it just does it to you
without asking. Maybe the debconf priority of the question is too low if
too many people are missing it.
Do you think this is also what prevented display managers (xdm, gdm, wings
are the ones
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 11:34:04PM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
If you call your insults to another contributor to debian deserved rant,
then I'd think you are either misinterpreting your status or unaware of
any social skills.
I'm sorry, WHO is misinterpeting
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 04:33:46AM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
There IS a debconf question about it.. it's not like it just does it to you
without asking. Maybe the debconf priority of the question is too low if
too many people are missing it.
Do you think this
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 12:01:42PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
Despite the inappropriate manner in which this is being reported (and
despite
having nothing to do with the bug that was actually filed), it's true that
we
won't want people
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
There IS a debconf question about it.. it's not like it just does it to you
without asking. Maybe the debconf priority of the question is too low if
too many people are missing it.
Do you think this is also what
54 matches
Mail list logo
