Em agosto 15, 2017 15:58 Henrik Danielsson via arch-general escreveu:
The Gmail Android app sends HTML emails - which I forgot when replying
during my lunch break - and I'm sorry for that, but it's not something
I can do anything about.
Actually it sends multipart MIME, both HTML and text.
Un
2017-08-15 21:10 GMT+02:00 Eli Schwartz :
> Oddly enough, I use Thunderbird, which displays HTML mail fine, and
> viewing the message source tells me that message was formatted as
> (mangled) plaintext.
The one I sent first, from my phone, clearly has the header for
"multipart/alternative" and then
On 08/15/2017 02:58 PM, Henrik Danielsson via arch-general wrote:
> I could also suggest you instead use a client capable of displaying
> HTML, then the quotes don't look that bad, but you're probably just as
> unlikely to change as anyone else. ;)
Oddly enough, I use Thunderbird, which displays H
2017-08-15 15:32 GMT+02:00 Eli Schwartz :
> I have no patience for reading people's broken quoting. Please try
> again, this time using a decent email client.
>
The Gmail Android app sends HTML emails - which I forgot when replying
during my lunch break - and I'm sorry for that, but it's not someth
Someone call 911, another trainwreck thread on [arch-general].
Watching the carnage ensue is not as much fun as it should be though,
so long after responders no longer pretend to care.
That being said, we should definitely add a versioned dependency
between fuse-common and sshfs. Just because my m
I have no patience for reading people's broken quoting. Please try
again, this time using a decent email client.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
OT: If for some reason proper quoting should be broken, top-posting
could be a better solution, than very broken bottom-posting, let
alone the broken interleaved posting of a previous reply.
Den 15 aug. 2017 13:46 skrev "Eli Schwartz" :
On 08/15/2017 03:47 AM, Paul Gideon Dann via arch-general wrote:
> Yes, partial upgrades are unsupported, but in practice this still happens,
> usually not deliberately. For instance, I will quite often do a "pacman -S
> " without doing a full system u
On 08/15/2017 03:47 AM, Paul Gideon Dann via arch-general wrote:
> Yes, partial upgrades are unsupported, but in practice this still happens,
> usually not deliberately. For instance, I will quite often do a "pacman -S
> " without doing a full system update first, assuming that
> *probably* nothing
On 14 August 2017 at 13:48, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 14:03:45 +0200, mpan wrote:
> >> why does a package from official repositories mentions what version
> >> of a dependency is required?
> >Because it may be that it is working only with that particular
> >version.
>
> That doesn
On 08/14/2017 08:48 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 14:03:45 +0200, mpan wrote:
>>> why does a package from official repositories mentions what version
>>> of a dependency is required?
>> Because it may be that it is working only with that particular
>> version.
>
> That doesn't e
On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 15:03:01 +0200, mpan wrote:
>Another case: sometimes multiple packages in the official repo may
>deliver the same thing: see jre8-openjdk and jre7-openjdk
Those packages provide java-runtime and java-runtime-openjdk, but you
could install both packages and if a package needs a
>>> why does a package from official repositories mentions what version
>>> of a dependency is required?
>> Because it may be that it is working only with that particular
>> version.
> That doesn't explain why it is needed or in any way useful for a package
> provided by official Arch repositori
On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 14:03:45 +0200, mpan wrote:
>> why does a package from official repositories mentions what version
>> of a dependency is required?
>Because it may be that it is working only with that particular
>version.
That doesn't explain why it is needed or in any way useful for a packa
> why does a package from official repositories mentions what version of
> a dependency is required?
Because it may be that it is working only with that particular
version. The two common scenarios are:
1) The package requires protocol/API/ABI/header/etc-level
compatibility. You may see
Hi Ralf,
On 2017-08-14 10:36:45 (+0200), Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> Note! I'm not asking anybody not to do it like this! I only want to know
> the reason for mentioning a version of a dependency, for packages from
> official repositories, since I don't know any reason. IOW I only want
> to learn.
AFAIK
Hi,
why does a package from official repositories mentions what version of
a dependency is required? Since the actually optional dependency
pulseaudio by upstream often is required as a hard dependency, for no
sane reason, I installed a dummy package years ago, to workaround time
consuming workaro
17 matches
Mail list logo