On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, Steve Langasek wrote:
SL>On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
SL>
SL>> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
SL>> > There IS a debconf question about it.. it's not like it just does it to
you
SL>> > without asking. Maybe the debconf priority of the question is too low if
SL>> > too m
> "exa" == exa writes:
exa> bug report? BTW, I'm not a professional ignorami whatever
exa> that means, dear literary pioneer of the list.
Correct. You are (or would be) a professional ignoramus. Ignorami is
the plural form, just like hippopotami & radii are the plural forms of
hip
> "Hamish" == Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hamish> On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 05:43:52PM +1000, Jason Henry
Hamish> Parker wrote:
>> ``Banks *are* bastards.'' -- John Laws
Hamish> Err, yeah.. takes one to know one?
Stop it. You're both making me home-sick :)
--
Eray Ozkural (exa) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 11:36:24AM +0100, Martin Bialasinski wrote:
> > You behaviour wrt bugs is more than lacking. You report something,
> > without making a report that has enough relevant info to deal with it
> > (read <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> again
Hi Martin,
please cc to me
Martin Bialasinski wrote:
>
> > I have developed a great liking for bug reports somehow.
>
> Then you just need to develope some skill for a) analysing bugs and
> writing useful reports and b) not going crazy when developers ask
> further question if they don't have a
[ No need to Cc: me, I do read debian-devel ]
* Eray Ozkural (exa) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, I will cc to debian-devel only when there is an affirmed
> conflict with the developer about the bug report, OK?
>> Your behaviour on this bugreport is a deja-vu of your behaviour on
>> #80544.
Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> Ah, so you have a time machine which you used to tell your earlier self
> that there was going to be trouble from me over bug 81397?
>
No comments. :)
> You CC'ed your *initial report* to debian-devel and debian-x, before I had
> anything at all to say on the subject
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 08:34:31PM +0200, Eray Ozkural wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 12:01:42PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I don't know why you think your personal bug reports are so important
> > that they demand the attention of not only the package maintainer, but
> > *also* everyone su
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 11:57:08PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Debian does not try to regulate the behaviour of its maintainers,
> except where the quality of the distribution itself is involved.
> What are your contributions to Debian Eray?
Non-regulation is a false claim. Maintainers are regu
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 11:36:24AM +0100, Martin Bialasinski wrote:
> You behaviour wrt bugs is more than lacking. You report something,
> without making a report that has enough relevant info to deal with it
> (read <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> again and understand it). When
> asked about specific info, yo
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 04:40:03AM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 11:34:04PM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> > > If you call your insults to another contributor to debian "deserved rant",
> > > then I'd think you are either misinterpreting yo
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 05:43:52PM +1000, Jason Henry Parker wrote:
> ``Banks *are* bastards.'' -- John Laws
Err, yeah.. takes one to know one?
Hamish, glad we don't have him down here.
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* "Eray Ozkural (exa)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Users here are not at all interested in the psychological state of a
> particular developer. On the contrary, every developer should be
> required to deal with every bug report in an objective manner.
> Inappropriate dismissal or incorrect evaluation o
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 05:43:52PM +1000, Jason Henry Parker wrote:
> Eray Ozkural (exa) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Hmm. Well, I know about that. The display managers start all right. The
> > problem occurs when I login. I'd tried xdm, wings and gdm. How come all
> > of them failed then?
>
Eray Ozkural (exa) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 11:03:57PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > The display manager
> > starts the X server, not the other way around, which means that the X server
> > has no control over the display manager's behavior; and the authentication
>
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 11:03:57PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The display manager
> starts the X server, not the other way around, which means that the X server
> has no control over the display manager's behavior; and the authentication
> failure you reported came from the display manager and
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > There IS a debconf question about it.. it's not like it just does it to you
> > without asking. Maybe the debconf priority of the question is too low if
> > too many people are missing it.
> Do you think this is also what p
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 12:01:42PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Despite the inappropriate manner in which this is being reported (and
> > despite
> > having nothing to do with the bug that was actually filed), it's true that
> > we
> > won't want
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 04:33:46AM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > There IS a debconf question about it.. it's not like it just does it to you
> > without asking. Maybe the debconf priority of the question is too low if
> > too many people are missing it.
>
> Do you th
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 11:34:04PM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> > If you call your insults to another contributor to debian "deserved rant",
> > then I'd think you are either misinterpreting your status or unaware of
> > any social skills.
>
> I'm sorry, WHO is mis
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> There IS a debconf question about it.. it's not like it just does it to you
> without asking. Maybe the debconf priority of the question is too low if
> too many people are missing it.
Do you think this is also what prevented display managers (xdm, gdm, wings
are the ones t
"Oliver M . Bolzer" wrote:
>
> You are still not getting it, arn`t you? It is not about the content at atll,
> is about quoting PRIVATE mail in PUBLIC places without asking FIRST. Sorry
> for shouting, but this has to be said.
>
Yes, I am getting it. But I'd always thought that content did matte
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 04:32:23AM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Fortunately, Eray, we're not all here for your amusement.
>
> I'm not addressing you Hamish. In all of our exchanges, there have
> always been a dose of respect.
If outside comment is unwelcome, why po
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 07:48:58PM +0200, Eray Ozkural wrote:
> > Such primitive reaction of yours is not likely to arouse interest
> > in prospective contributors; to join debian and to work with people
> > like you.
>
> Fortunately, Eray, we're not all here for your am
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 07:48:58PM +0200, Eray Ozkural wrote:
> Such primitive reaction of yours is not likely to arouse interest
> in prospective contributors; to join debian and to work with people
> like you.
Fortunately, Eray, we're not all here for your amusement.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 12:01:42PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Despite the inappropriate manner in which this is being reported (and despite
> having nothing to do with the bug that was actually filed), it's true that we
> won't want people upgrading from potato to woody to be caught unawares b
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 11:34:04PM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> If you call your insults to another contributor to debian "deserved rant",
> then I'd think you are either misinterpreting your status or unaware of
> any social skills.
I'm sorry, WHO is misinterpeting their status?
Hamish
--
>>"Erik" == Erik Hollensbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Erik> I don't quite get this... This list is moderated.
What in heavens name leads you to this conclusion?
manoj
--
Entreprenuer, n.: A high-rolling risk taker who would rather be a
spectacular failure than a dismal succ
On Saturday 06 January 2001 16:07, Oliver M . Bolzer wrote:
> Legally, you might be allowed to (fair-use) quote private mail sent
> to you as one end of the communication pipe, but we are talking
> netiquette here. Really, it is not yours to decide wheter it is wrong
> or not to make that mail pub
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 09:39:08PM +0200, Eray Ozkural <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote...
> What is more, I honestly did consider if there was anything that would
> be wrong to show publicly. Perhaps I assumed that everybody knew how
> unnecessarily aggressive the xfree86 maintainer is, and thus nobo
Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> I can handle it just fine when clueful people characterize me as
> "psychotic". When professional ignorami like you get hysterical on two
> mailing lists and the BTS simultaneously over a FAQ, because you upgraded
> your production system to an unstable, unreleased ope
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 12:01:42PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Clearly not, or you would know that XFree4 requires explicit configuration to
> allow non-root users to run the X server. This is most definitely a FEATURE,
> added to improve security, /not/ a bug.
>
It is different than what use
Excuse me, I had not read the latter amusing part of the mail.
I'd just seen the reassign part.
It looks like Branden makes another hopeless attempt at defamation
of a bug reporter and fellow contributor with his underrated
literary skills.
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 10:36:33AM -0500, Branden Robins
Hi Erik!
On Sat, 06 Jan 2001, Erik Hollensbe wrote:
> I don't quite get this... This list is moderated. Is it not too much for
Not that I know of.
> I have a hard time finding the logic in wasting your time complaing about
> how your time is being wasted. What does this solve?
Humans are hardly
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 09:00:38PM +0200, Eray Ozkural wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 04:39:43PM -0200, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> > Branden, please understand this for what it is meant: "Branden does not like
> > to be poked. He seems to like even less to be poked by you. Please don't
> > poke
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 08:28:53PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > There is nothing personal in my reply and neither in quoted text and
> ~~
> Um, there is. The thing that caused you to say "Great kiss ass" to hmh.
>
Well, his answer t
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 12:01:42PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Branden, perhaps the XFree4 server package should check if the
> previously-installed version was a 3.3 server, and offer to set up the
> Xwrapper.config file appropriately?
I considered this, but judged that the cost of writing a p
(this is not directed specifically at anyone)
I don't quite get this... This list is moderated. Is it not too much for
the moderator to moderate these postings and/or the user instead of
drawing hte hounds just because one guy things a bug should be in a
different spot?
Some logical discussion,
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 04:39:43PM -0200, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> That mailing search stuff has some weird problems, yes. As for not being
> written down anywhere, the postinst asks you about it. I think there is a
> manpage for Xwrappers.config, but it's not installed in my system.
There is.
On Sat, 06 Jan 2001, Eray Ozkural wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 04:39:43PM -0200, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> > Branden, please understand this for what it is meant: "Branden does not like
> > to be poked. He seems to like even less to be poked by you. Please don't
> > poke him, he'll bite back
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 08:56:41PM +0200, Eray Ozkural wrote:
> > You have the gall to quote private email on a public list, and
> > expect people to accord you any attention whatsoever? Have you ever
> > heard of nettiquette?
>
> There is nothing personal in my reply and neither in quoted
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 04:39:43PM -0200, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> Branden, please understand this for what it is meant: "Branden does not like
> to be poked. He seems to like even less to be poked by you. Please don't
> poke him, he'll bite back and we get to watch the fallout."
>
Great kiss
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 12:43:15PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> You have the gall to quote private email on a public list, and
> expect people to accord you any attention whatsoever? Have you ever
> heard of nettiquette?
There is nothing personal in my reply and neither in quoted text
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 01:16:22PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> 2a. Install (or recompile) the specific packages from unstable that fix the
> bugs
That I should have done...
--
Eray (exa) Ozkural
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www: http://www.cs.bilk
>>"Eray" == Eray Ozkural (exa) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Eray> This is my answer to a private mail (it seems...) I don't want to talk
Eray> about these in private. Please note the reason why I carried this bug
Eray> report to the list.
You have the gall to quote private email on a pu
> This is my answer to a private mail (it seems...) I don't want to talk
> about these in private. Please note the reason why I carried this bug
> report to the list.
Well, sorry but now you're in MY non-permanent (YET) shitlist for violating
netiquette, and I'll have to acknowledge that Branden W
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 07:29:35PM +0200, Eray Ozkural wrote:
> What is this supposed to mean? There are many users here suffering from this
> problem since this is a multi-user system and none of them have the time
> to learn the peculiarities of x. They, and I, just want to use this stuff
> and
On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, Eray Ozkural wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 05:18:56PM +0100, Samuel Hocevar wrote:
>
> >You might be interested in RTFMing, or checking past bugs, or having
> > a look at /etc/X11/Xwrapper.config.
> I did RTFM mf.
Clearly not, or you would know that XFree4 requires ex
This is my answer to a private mail (it seems...) I don't want to talk
about these in private. Please note the reason why I carried this bug
report to the list.
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 02:59:31PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> You've already gotten into Branden's permanent shitlist.
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001, Eray Ozkural wrote:
> I did RTFM mf. Got any idea why this is happening? The problem is that
> we just upgraded, didn't alter anything and ended up with a broken
> xinit. How can this be possible?
Dunno. Shit may happen, you know. But I don't think it's worth Cc:ing
debi
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 05:18:56PM +0100, Samuel Hocevar wrote:
>You might be interested in RTFMing, or checking past bugs, or having
> a look at /etc/X11/Xwrapper.config.
>
I did RTFM mf. Got any idea why this is happening? The problem is that
we just upgraded, didn't alter anything and end
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001, Eray Ozkural wrote:
> Anyway, here is what I get:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ startx
>
> X: user not authorized to run the X server, aborting.
> xinit: unexpected signal 2
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$
>
> Is this normal? Users could start their X servers before
> upgrading a co
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 10:36:33AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> reassign 81397 gdm
> thanks
>
hi branden,
if you read the bug report carefully, you'll see that
I complain about not being able to login from *anywhere*
including gdm.
I'm working on it now, and it seems I can't start X
as a n
reassign 81397 gdm
thanks
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 05:20:42PM +0200, Eray 'exa' Ozkural wrote:
> Package: xserver-xfree86
> Version: 4.0.1-9
> Severity: important
>
> When I try to start X server as a user, the X server complains that
> the authorization has failed and terminates. Likewise when
>
54 matches
Mail list logo
