Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] immo vero scripsit
In practise, it might be perfectly safe to install on a normal
partition. Just that there is no point.
I think it replaces /sbin/init, so it's not harmless..
Thinking about the merits of having diskless nodes being
able to upgrade, is an
Junichi Uekawa [EMAIL PROTECTED] immo vero scripsit
A note.
Good. Send me a patch.
I will apply it.
... after woody, probably.
It has been there since potato, and I don't think I will make a last
minute change to a package.
This is, IMO a bogus bug.
Go and fix a real bug. There are enough
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 02:20:31PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
This is, IMO a bogus bug.
Go and fix a real bug. There are enough already.
A package that will do grave damage to your system if installed
is not a real bug?
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pointless website:
severity 112723 critical
thanks
David Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED] immo vero scripsit
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 02:20:31PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
This is, IMO a bogus bug.
Go and fix a real bug. There are enough already.
A package that will do grave damage to your system if installed
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 03:16:13PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:01:24AM -0400, Norbert Veber wrote:
packages such as diskless-image-secure, diskless-image-simple, xfsprogs-bf,
e2fsprogs-bf should automatically qualify for grave or even critical bugs
for breaking
On 19-Sep-01, 18:16 (CDT), Ethan Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
read the description for xfsprogs-bf and e2fsprogs-bf, your NOT
SUPPOSED to install them. we need them for boot-floppies.
Fine. Why are they in the main archive? If it's so that the bf can
access them over the net, then they
#include hallo.h
Norbert Veber wrote on Thu Sep 20, 2001 um 09:58:16AM:
If its not to be installed, it should not be in the archive. This is like
going to a restaurant and being told not to eat a certain dish under any
circumstances because you'll get food poisoning.. :)
What is the problem?
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 09:58:16AM -0400, Norbert Veber wrote:
If its not to be installed, it should not be in the archive. This is like
going to a restaurant and being told not to eat a certain dish under any
circumstances because you'll get food poisoning.. :)
Clearly these pacakges are
Norbert == Norbert Veber [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Norbert From the description of diskless-image-simple: WARNING:
Norbert This package can and will break your computer. Do not
Norbert install manually. It should only be installed via the
Norbert diskless-newimage, part of the
Hi,
It looks like more and more of these are popping up. It seems to me that
packages such as diskless-image-secure, diskless-image-simple, xfsprogs-bf,
e2fsprogs-bf should automatically qualify for grave or even critical bugs
for breaking your system if installed.
From the description of
In Wed, 19 Sep 2001 11:01:24 -0400 Norbert cum veritate scripsit :
Why are such things allowed into the archive? Will these things ever
even
make it into testing given that they are uninstallable?
diskless-image-secure | 0.3.6 |stable | all
diskless-image-secure | 0.3.15 |
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:01:24AM -0400, Norbert Veber wrote:
packages such as diskless-image-secure, diskless-image-simple, xfsprogs-bf,
e2fsprogs-bf should automatically qualify for grave or even critical bugs
for breaking your system if installed.
read the description for xfsprogs-bf and
Em Wed, 19 Sep 2001 11:01:24 -0400
Norbert Veber [EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu:
It looks like more and more of these are popping up. It seems to me that
by the way, I think we're losing lots of the benefits our release/test cycle
is suppose to give us... I see many people making last-hour changes
13 matches
Mail list logo
