No problem, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you'll recieve them no longer.
You are aware that you had to sign up in the first place though... right? On Mon, 29 May 2006, John Laremore wrote: > > quit f'in email bombing me you arse holes. > > ________________________________________________________________________________ > From: Bo ?rsted Andresen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems > Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 00:10:25 +0200 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Received: from robin.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102]) by > bay0-mc2-f10.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft > SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 28 May 2006 15:14:51 -0700 > Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])by > robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k4SMD7KS003610;Sun, > 28 May 2006 22:13:07 GMT > Received: from cicero2.cybercity.dk (cicero2.cybercity.dk > [212.242.40.53])by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id > k4SMALei017832for <[email protected]>; Sun, 28 May 2006 > 22:10:21 GMT > Received: from user2.cybercity.dk (user2.cybercity.dk > [212.242.41.35])by cicero2.cybercity.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id > C1DA9244F08for <[email protected]>; Mon, 29 May 2006 > 00:10:20 +0200 (CEST) > Received: from BA.zlin.dk (port78.ds1-abs.adsl.cybercity.dk > [212.242.227.17])by user2.cybercity.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id > 6BB172869D7for <[email protected]>; Mon, 29 May 2006 > 00:10:20 +0200 (CEST) > >Sunday 28 May 2006 21:48 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin: > > > > This change could be a > > > > bugfix. By making your own digest you don't get this > bugfix... > > > > > > more probably - the mirror corrupted the file. Or someone > replaced it with > > > a hacked package. > > > >While that is possible I'm not really sure why you consider it > more likely. > > > >At least in my case this bug showed when I upgraded from > perl-cleaner-1.03 to > >perl-cleaner-1.03-r1. Those two ebuilds are identical and use the > same tar > >file as source. This means that when I originally (a couple of > weeks ago) > >installed 1.03 the digest fitted the other, smaller tar file, > which means > >that devs has approved both versions of that tar file). It did > install > >successfully (and seemed to work) so it couldn't be too corrupted. > > > >So while it is possible that the devs approved a file that > shouldn't have been > >approved, I prefer to think that upstream just did something > stupid by > >upgrading the package without a revision bump.. :) > > > >-- > >Bo Andresen > > ><< attach3 >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________ > Join the new Messenger beta now -- [email protected] mailing list >
