I'm beginning to regret starting this thread; then again, I do come from a
long line of stirrers (to which some bods on this list will attest)...
And yes, I'm still annoyed that "jive"[*] got deleted for no technical
reason whatsoever; then again, I'm still bemused by Americans taking a
leak
On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 8:52 PM, Sid wrote:
> > Blubee Blubeeme;
> > Who thought that was a good idea, now layer a few more audio layers and
> u have Linux[ism] to the max.
> > Well, I think that it's not really worth it to go untangle that mess.
> > It's okay if you're using a
On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 2:42 AM, Matthias Andree
wrote:
> Am 23.12.2017 um 08:12 schrieb Kevin Oberman:
> >
> > So, why does Eugene's question have no relevance to the procmail
> > case? Could you please explain?
>
> Because I am not willing to discuss generics when we
From: Joseph Mingrone
Subject: Re: Are these Emacs ports still useful?
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 18:29:29 -0400
>>> A quick scan suggests that these port may have passed their usefulness.
>>> Could you speak up if they are still useful or if you feel they should
>>> be removed?
>>
Yasuhiro KIMURA writes:
> From: Joseph Mingrone
> Subject: Re: Are these Emacs ports still useful?
> Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 18:29:29 -0400
A quick scan suggests that these port may have passed their usefulness.
Could you speak up if they are still
Hi,
I resend this message because it was rejected by ports list.
> On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 17:29:51 -0400
> Joseph Mingrone said:
jrm> - mail/xcite (no real updates since 2010, still useful?)
I'm using it. It is very useful at least for me.
I don't think no update means
Hi,
I resend this message because it was rejected by ports list.
> On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 17:29:51 -0400
> Joseph Mingrone said:
jrm> - mail/x-face-e21 (not fetchable)
It seems fetchable.
--
Hajimu UMEMOTO
u...@mahoroba.org u...@freebsd.org
From: Joseph Mingrone
Subject: Are these Emacs ports still useful?
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 17:29:51 -0400
> A quick scan suggests that these port may have passed their usefulness.
> Could you speak up if they are still useful or if you feel they should
> be removed?
(snip)
> -
[resending because original did not make it to the list]
Joseph Mingrone writes:
> Hajimu UMEMOTO writes:
>> Hi,
>>> On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 17:29:51 -0400
>>> Joseph Mingrone said:
>> jrm> - mail/xcite (no real updates since 2010,
[resending because original message did not make it to the list]
Joseph Mingrone writes:
> Yasuhiro KIMURA writes:
>> From: Joseph Mingrone
>> Subject: Are these Emacs ports still useful?
>> Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 17:29:51 -0400
>>> A
[resending (with updates) because original message did not make it to the list]
Hello all,
A quick scan suggests that these port may have passed their usefulness.
Could you speak up if they are still useful or if you feel they should
be removed?
Regards,
Joseph
- sysutils/puppet-mode.el
Yasuhiro KIMURA writes:
> From: Joseph Mingrone
> Subject: Are these Emacs ports still useful?
> Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 17:29:51 -0400
>> A quick scan suggests that these port may have passed their usefulness.
>> Could you speak up if they are still useful
From: Joseph Mingrone
Subject: Are these Emacs ports still useful?
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 17:29:51 -0400
> A quick scan suggests that these port may have passed their usefulness.
> Could you speak up if they are still useful or if you feel they should
> be removed?
(snip)
> -
On Saturday, 23 December 2017 17:42:26 CET, Ted Hatfield
wrote:
...
I think that as long as someone is willing to patch the software when
vulnerabilities come up we should keep the port available.
Ted Hatfield
+1
matthias
--
Sent from my Ubuntu phone
On Sat, 23 Dec 2017, Matthias Andree wrote:
Am 23.12.2017 um 08:12 schrieb Kevin Oberman:
So, why does Eugene's question have no relevance to the procmail
case? Could you please explain?
Because I am not willing to discuss generics when we have a specific
case of port at hand.
The
Dear port maintainer,
The portscout new distfile checker has detected that one or more of your
ports appears to be out of date. Please take the opportunity to check
each of the ports listed below, and if possible and appropriate,
submit/commit an update. If any ports have already been updated,
Am 23.12.2017 um 08:12 schrieb Kevin Oberman:
>
> So, why does Eugene's question have no relevance to the procmail
> case? Could you please explain?
Because I am not willing to discuss generics when we have a specific
case of port at hand.
The attempted generalization distracts from that, and I
17 matches
Mail list logo