. Anyway, I
do not use those devices anymore.
Wondering if the solution would be that simple... What would happen if a
new rule had already been generated, and it is not removed as I did
myself? Which one would get matched? The old one or the new one?
Kind regards,
--
Antonio Fiol
Marco
. If I can do any testing for you, I
will be happy to do it.
Antonio Fiol
-- Package-specific info:
-- /etc/udev/rules.d/:
/etc/udev/rules.d/:
total 120
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root19 oct 27 2005 025_libgphoto2.rules -
../libgphoto2.rules
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root22 ene 15 2006
Package: gnome-icon-theme
Version: 2.20.0-1
Severity: normal
The icon for emblem Special was present in 2.14 and is not present in
2.20.
This makes all files having that emblem selected to lose -at least
visually- that information.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
APT
sincerely,
--
Antonio Fiol
-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.15-1-686-smp (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (charmap=ISO-8859-15)
Shell: /bin/sh linked
memory could be checked at gallery set-up time (or
even in postinst), and this could avoid users a lot of hassle when
upgrading with moderately big albums.
Thank you very much.
--
Antonio Fiol
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (500
: Refactor the graphical part (using lots of libs) out from
the waiting process.
I do not know if that is feasible, but if possible it would be nice.
Yours,
Antonio Fiol
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686
Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Antonio Fiol said:
I am using clamd in STREAM mode in every case.
I have found a way of fooling the scanner to give a false
negative:
If the user sends a BIG file (bigger than the limit) with a virus near
the end (outside the limit), it will get
further.
Yours,
Antonio Fiol
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.8
Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (charmap=ISO-8859-15)
Versions of packages dvbackup depends on:
ii libc6
of
uncorrectable blocks.
But... Shouldn't a single checksum error be very easily correctable?
Thank you very much.
Antonio Fiol
PS: ~/dvbackup-0.0.4rj1/ is the directory where I ...
apt-get source dvbackup
cd dvbackup-0.0.4rj1
... modify configure as stated above ...
debian/rules build
/home/fiol/dvbackup
9 matches
Mail list logo
