On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, Russell Coker wrote:
You don't have sym-links to the root directory? Why not?
There's absolutely no need or necessarily a desire to do so; besides
which, the point is moot: if you're in the automation arena, you'll
notice that kernel-package no longer produces them.
Trying
On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 14:14:24 Ben Armstrong wrote:
For the most part, I think there is enough flexibility within Debian to
pick and choose the smallest tools that will do the job from among the
binary packages. Where Debian currently falls short, we can create -tiny
versions of packages as
On Sat, 19 Aug 2000 09:22:12 Glenn McGrath wrote:
hmm, im not sure its practical to create extra binary packages, wouldnt
it be more effective to exclude files from regular packages as its
installed.
I was suggesting that the script would create them on-the-fly -- they
wouldn't reside
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Staffan Hamala wrote:
Why doesn't the installer use -v1 so that larger swaps that 128MB can
be used?
I presume this is a boot-floppies issue, and will indeed be rectified
nearer release time -- for the time being, it would seem prudent not
to sacrifice any compatibility
On 30 Sep 1999, David Coe wrote:
Is that still an accurate description of the legal status (from
FSF's perspective) of XEmacs, and if so, shouldn't we move it to
non-free?
Yes, probably; but no. RMS is referring to the fact that many authors
of many pieces of xemacs haven't assigned
On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
b) if you know what you are doing, compile the packages by hand, fix their
install scripts, and remove the conflicts. You are trying to circumvent the
norm.
But I think, to be fair, that what he's proposing *isn't* necessarily
`not the norm' --
On Fri, 24 Sep 1999, Matthew Vernon wrote:
This is all very well, except for those of us who email from work, and
have their PGP key at home...
Well, depending on how paranoid you may be, there are a few solutions:
* Keep a copy of at least your `secring.pgp' on a floppy disk, and
use
On Fri, 24 Sep 1999, Clint Adams wrote:
They both provide httpd; should I file bugs against them demanding that
they conflict with it too?
I think this is a good point; it doesn't seem to be a clear area
of policy. It sounds like perhaps some new system needs to be
implemented. Perhaps a
On Sat, 25 Sep 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
Perhaps there are people who want a service enabled by default policy,
and perhaps we should accomodate them. However, I'm not one of them
and I don't want any services turned on on some of my machines without
my explicit ok.
Yes, and I think this is
On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Brian May wrote:
However, if both packages contain a different implementation of the
same file (or even worse - a completely different program with the same
name), then things will break, depending on what order the
programs are installed in.
This is true, and would need
On Sat, 18 Sep 1999, Michael Stone wrote:
Definately by package. I can think of several circumstances where this
is useful: when a bug is closed in unstable but someone using stable
wants an explanation for a problem; when a bug is inadvertantly
reintroduced; when a maintainer closes a bug
On Thu, 16 Sep 1999, Jordan Mendelson wrote:
Just a quick idea, instead of having to download an entire package where 95%
of the files don't change, what about downloading a type of binary diff? I can
think of two ways to do it:
I've wanted something like this for a while -- I was also
On 16 Sep 1999, Michael Alan Dorman wrote:
I would _hope_, however, that being face to face might have the
opposite effect.
Yes, I agree, and in all likelihood I think that's what'll happen. :)
--
Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] ( http://www.fluff.org/chris )
On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
Having a big convention would be really awfull, but it's difficult to
get sponsors and much more difficult to gather developers from all
over the world. What about a series of smaller conferences? We can have
Debian Europe, Debian America
On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Michael Stone wrote:
How much trouble would it be to add another category--unreproduced or
somesuch?
Yes, or `observational', `possible', that sort of thing. I agree.
--
Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] ( http://www.fluff.org/chris )
On Thu, 16 Sep 1999, David Bristel wrote:
With this in mind, I think that having a configuration variable for apt that
would allow the downloaded .deb files to be put in a user defined place. This
way, if your /var is close to being full, you could, for example, drop it
into a
temporary
On Thu, 16 Sep 1999, John Lapeyre wrote:
The 2.0.37 and 2.2.x kernels keep hanging on my AMD K6-2.
This sounds *bad*, BTW; have you checked around to see if anyone
else has had these kinds of freezing problems? Is your machine
unstable in any other way?
You may find all you need to do is
Re: all the bug-finding in ProFTPd (I just read the SuSE notice about
it being dropped for lameness reasons, including it *still* being
vulnerable to remote exploit) -- if it is, indeed, *that* bad
(and the common consensus among admins I know is that it is), perhaps
the netkit ftpd shouldn't come
On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, Remco van de Meent wrote:
Uhm, don't forget that in .nl there is only one campus university like the
ones widespread in the USA. And moreover (I currently live on that campus)
there ain't that many free dorm rooms during summer (people tend to stay on
campus during
On 17 Sep 1999, Martin Bialasinski wrote:
OK, a bug in cron has recently produced a root exploit. What a crappy
software, it should be moved to contrib.
Yes, but there aren't *hundreds* of bugs in cron, all giving security
problems; it has been subject (presumably) to security review;
bugs
On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Jonathan Walther wrote:
drives. But given they are in such a vast minority, the current scheme of
providing sensible defaults and popping the installer into a tool for
creating your own arbitrary partition scheme is really the best.
(at least, Im ASSUMING we do that the
On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
Wouldn't it be great if all the debian developers could be flown in to a
convention site, get to meet each other, really tighten up the gpg web of
trust, attend talks by developers, discuss important issues in person, and
so on? It would really make us
On 16 Sep 1999, Steve Dunham wrote:
All of their Linux books use a rodeo/cowboy theme rather than the
traditional animal theme. I have no idea why. I kinda prefer the
animals, but maybe they were running out?
Last time I asked I got some mutter about `brand pollution' or
something.
On Thu, 16 Sep 1999, John Lapeyre wrote:
Is it possible to build 2.0.x kernels under a reasonable
potato build environment ? I tried make CC=gcc272, but
I still get failures from the assembler, I think.
Erm, yeah, I had no problems as I remember. Just apply the
patches mentioned at
On Thu, 16 Sep 1999, John Lapeyre wrote:
The link to suse doesn't work at the moment, but I'll give it a try.
The blurb at cygnus does not look encouraging. I think it is claiming
that I have to to change asm constructs at various unspecified places
in the source.
Nah, they're just
On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Paul Slootman wrote:
If all I'm doing is trying fix something, usually just invoking 'make'
will do it (or some subtle variation that a glance at the rules file
will make clear). Once it builds, I do 'debian/rules clean' and then
restart the package build, to ensure
For months now, `w' has only reported `-' (well, *almost* all the
time, anyway) in the FROM field for any connections made through
`telnetd'. Finally, with the update to PAMed `login', I once again
have the hostnames correctly appearing in FROM again. Does anyone
know why this wasn't working for
27 matches
Mail list logo
