Hi,
I think that not only should bugs be marked by the
distributions they exist in, they should also be classified by
architecture; since it is quite possible for a bug to only exist in a
specific arch. This opens to dor for arch specific maintainers; which
is not a bad idea since the
Craig Sanders wrote:
i remember the discussion, but the links were never made.
i stopped caring about it when i found that apt could use both frozen
and unstablesolves the problem without having to wait for our
overworked ftp site manager.
Unfortunately, that doesn't help me, since
Roberto Lumbreras [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here you have the log.
Thanks. From looking at your log, as I expected, the problem occurs
when you try to install emacs20 and cvs-pcl simultaneously. This is
because elib is not being properly configured (by the emacsen-common
script) before
Hi,
I like to package pavuk. It is a wget like programm with optional GTK
interface from http://www.idata.sk/~ondrej/pavuk/
Comments?
Ciao,
Martin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 11:54:05AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
In both these examples the cludge only hangs around for a while, while
the epoch gets stuck on the version forever.
Is it really that bad? You said you don't want the clutter of it but
I can't really see how there is much clutter. I
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Unfortunately, that doesn't help me, since mirror can't do things like that
and I need to kep a local mirror for other purposes.
Yeah, I had to re-do my whole mirror setup to accomodate this. What I
wanted was just an unstable mirror, but I had to switch to
On Mon, 22 Jun 1998, Dale Scheetz wrote:
There has got to be a better way to deal with this problem (which is
fundamentally a sorting problem).
Santiago's suggestion of 2.0.7r-1 is more satisfying but, if you
consider the situation, doesn't really resolve the long term problem
any better.
This sounds idential to nas, which is already in debian. Is it the same
thing?
Package: nas
Status: install ok installed
Priority: optional
Section: sound
Installed-Size: 1612
Maintainer: Steve McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Version: 1.2p5-2
Depends: libc6, xlib6g (= 3.3-5)
Conffiles:
Only that someone else posted their intentions last week. Sorry.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have seen numerous people post Intentions to package apps that are
already being worked on. Please read the wnpp (it is made for a
reason). And when you do announce you intentions PLEASE cc wnpp so that
it gets added to the list.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
Hi,
Just wondering how many Debianites are signed up to attend the UK Unix User
Group's Linux Developers Event this weekend (27-28 June) in Manchester, UK.
BTW Anyone that is attending ought to bring a copy of their PGP public key,
and proof of ID so we can do some key signing can happen.
S == Shaleh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
S Only that someone else posted their intentions last week. Sorry.
I am subscribed to debian-devel for a week, so I missed that. But I checked
http://www.debian.org/doc/prospective-packages.html and there is no entry
for it. Actually this site looks out
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 11:54:05AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
In both these examples the cludge only hangs around for a while, while
the epoch gets stuck on the version forever.
Is it really that bad? You said you don't want the clutter of it but
Hi all,
Where are the extended input modules for X in hamm?
I mean the files that lived in /usr/X11R6/lib/modules with bo, like
xf86Wacom.so?
I need to have that module to run my Wacom tablet!
Please get back to me!
Thanks very much,
Chris
On Tue, Jun 23, 1998 at 02:33:13PM +1000, Chris wrote:
Where are the extended input modules for X in hamm?
I mean the files that lived in /usr/X11R6/lib/modules with bo, like
xf86Wacom.so?
xext
--
G. Branden Robinson |
Purdue University | The noble soul
Joey This sounds idential to nas, which is already in debian. Is it the
Joey same thing?
no. while nas and rplay have simliar goals, they are different packages.
Joey Package: nas
Joey Status: install ok installed
Joey Priority: optional
Joey Section: sound
Joey Installed-Size: 1612
Joey
Hi!
I've got a problem compiling csound with libc6. The source
includes bsd/sgtty.h which is not in libc6-dev, but
there's a sgtty.h.
I've tried to use this one. But the compiler told me
that he don't know the size of struct sgttyb. Any ideas?
cu, Marco
--
Uni: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mailbox:
On Mon, 22 Jun 1998, Shaleh wrote:
I have seen numerous people post Intentions to package apps that are
already being worked on. Please read the wnpp (it is made for a
reason). And when you do announce you intentions PLEASE cc wnpp so that
it gets added to the list.
It probably wouldn't be
Dale Scheetz writes:
I like Santiago's suggestion better:
2.0.8pre1 = 2.0.7.99.1
2.0.8pre2 = 2.0.7.99.2
:
2.0.8 = 2.0.8
Which scales properly and solves the problem.
Mmm, well, this was actually suggested by Vincent Renardias, but yes, I
Dale Scheetz writes:
In the mean time, unless anyone can object within the next several hours,
I will construct and upload a new release of glibc with the version
number: 2.0.7r-1
I would advise for 2.0.7final instead. IMHO 2.0.7r looks much like an
additional patch-level.
--
Yann Dirson
For all of you who seem interested by these issues of version
numbering, I signal we started not long ago a thread in debian-policy
about this. You'll find this under Summary: dpkg and alpha/beta
versioning.
I noted some possible ways of dealing with this issue that I did not
include in my 1st
Craig Sanders writes:
how about using 2.07pre8-1, 2.07pre8-2, and so on for the next set of
glibc pre-releases?
Seems like it doesn't work:
$ dpkg --compare-versions 2.07pre8-1 '' 2.0.8 echo yes || echo no
no
--
Yann Dirson[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Stop making M$-Bill richer richer,
Rob Browning writes:
Yann Dirson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Note: I don't know much about the internals of the BTS; I hope this
will be accurate enough, though]
* These fields would be named by the codename of the dist
(eg. `hamm_status') - can this be achieved easily ?
Here's another reason using the epoch for this situation is bad, if you
continue the process you get something like:
2.0.6
2.0.7pre1
1:2.0.7
1:2.0.8pre1
2:2.0.8
2:2.0.9pre1
3:2.0.10
3:2.0.10pre1
4:2.0.11
...
No, that's not what happens at all. It's more like this:
2.0.6-1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Tue, 23 Jun 1998, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 11:54:05AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
In both these examples the cludge only hangs around for a while, while
the epoch gets stuck on the version forever.
Is it really that bad? You said
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Dale Scheetz writes:
In the mean time, unless anyone can object within the next several
hours, I will construct and upload a new release of glibc with the
version number: 2.0.7r-1
I would advise for 2.0.7final instead. IMHO 2.0.7r looks much like an
additional
On Tue, Jun 23, 1998 at 05:07:37AM +0200, Paul Seelig wrote:
[...]
The initial update to libc6 via the autoup.sh went very smooth and
flawlessly. I fetched the .deb packages via FTP over a decent
bandwith and this went pretty fast. The bad thing afterwards was the
painfully slo o o o o w w w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 21 Jun 1998, Mark W. Eichin wrote:
Perhaps you could review the discussion 6 months ago (or more!) when
we first concluded that this was the *only* way it would work...
Is anybody able to do a brief summary, please? If emacs is abolished as
a virtual
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hi.
Guy Maor said to me a few days ago that he will fix all non-wishlist bugs
against ftp.debian.org before release.
However, normal bugs against ftp.debian.org are not in the list of
important or higher bugs.
So please include all ftp.debian.org normal bugs
On Tue, 23 Jun 1998, Philip Hands wrote:
Yann Dirson wrote:
Craig Sanders writes:
how about using 2.07pre8-1, 2.07pre8-2, and so on for the
next set of glibc pre-releases?
Seems like it doesn't work:
$ dpkg --compare-versions 2.07pre8-1 '' 2.0.8 echo yes || echo
no no
You
Enrique Zanardi wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 01:38:21PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Enrique Zanardi writes (Re: Release management - technical):
On Tue, Jun 09, 1998 at 04:21:57PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
...
I think we can only do one of these. With hamm we're doing the
latter;
Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I think that not only should bugs be marked by the
distributions they exist in, they should also be classified by
architecture;
Actually, I think we can do the same way more efficent. Each bug already
has a Version-number. Now we if we add a field
Hello!
When a new bug is reported against a given package, the
package maintainer gets this bug report as a personal
mail. I consider this really useful as the maintainers
don't have to check the bug-lists to know if there are new
bug reports against their packages.
Later someone will reassign
Florian Hinzmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Later someone will reassign that bug to the correct package, but the
maintainer of that package won't get any mail.
That's simply not true.
--
James
~Yawn And Walk North~ http://yawn.nocrew.org/
--
To
On Tue, 23 Jun 1998, Yann Dirson wrote:
Dale Scheetz writes:
In the mean time, unless anyone can object within the next several hours,
I will construct and upload a new release of glibc with the version
number: 2.0.7r-1
I would advise for 2.0.7final instead. IMHO 2.0.7r looks much
On Tue, 23 Jun 1998, Yann Dirson wrote:
Dale Scheetz writes:
I like Santiago's suggestion better:
2.0.8pre1 = 2.0.7.99.1
2.0.8pre2 = 2.0.7.99.2
:
2.0.8 = 2.0.8
Which scales properly and solves the problem.
Philip Hands [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
RANT
If people weren't being childish about the addition of 2 characters to the
changelog, which the users generally never see, we wouldn't be having this
discussion.
[...]
Use the tools provided!
/RANT
(Sorry for the AOL, but...) Well said; I
On 23 Jun 1998, James Troup wrote:
(Sorry for the AOL, but...) Well said; I wish people would get over
their epoch-phobia already.
And I wish people would stop suggesting a poor solution.
Epochs are not, were never, intended to be used for this purpose. They are
only for dealing with
On Tue, Jun 23, 1998 at 11:23:43AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 11:54:05AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
In both these examples the cludge only hangs around for a while, while
the epoch gets stuck on the version forever.
Is it really that bad? You said you don't
On Tue, Jun 23, 1998 at 09:52:05AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
If people weren't being childish about the addition of 2 characters to the
changelog, which the users generally never see, we wouldn't be having this
discussion.
Well said, Phil.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
On Tue, Jun 23, 1998 at 08:32:41AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
On 23 Jun 1998, James Troup wrote:
(Sorry for the AOL, but...) Well said; I wish people would get over
their epoch-phobia already.
And I wish people would stop suggesting a poor solution.
Epochs are not, were never,
On Tue, Jun 23, 1998 at 11:39:31AM +0200, Santiago Vila Doncel wrote:
Is anybody able to do a brief summary, please? If emacs is abolished as
a virtual package name, what is the point in forbidding a package to name
itself as emacs?
Because we cannot banish it for all time past.
Hamish
--
On 23-Jun-98 James Troup wrote:
Florian Hinzmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Later someone will reassign that bug to the correct package, but the
maintainer of that package won't get any mail.
That's simply not true.
I've read some bug reports online containing entries saying
Report
Last week I received mail from the people at gnuhoo.com asking that
we submit an entry for Debian. It sounded like a good idea and put
it (low down) on my list of things to do and didn't give it another
thought until today.
Slashdot has an article about gnuhoo.com that people might want to
read
Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 23 Jun 1998, James Troup wrote:
(Sorry for the AOL, but...) Well said; I wish people would get
over their epoch-phobia already.
And I wish people would stop suggesting a poor solution.
How is it a ``poor'' solution?
I'll tell you what _is_
Thanks. From looking at your log, as I expected, the problem occurs
when you try to install emacs20 and cvs-pcl simultaneously. This is
because elib is not being properly configured (by the emacsen-common
script) before cvs-pcl. This is a bug, but I'm worried about having
time to fix it
Hi,
I finally got packages of libGGI built and uploaded. I was quite pleased
to find that the generic debian/rules that I've been using for the last
9 months really -does- work correctly for multiple binary packages.
I always thought it would, but never had a multi-binary package to try
it on.
Here is the reply from xanim author regarding xanim plugins. I also tried to
prod him for making it free software, but apparently that is not happening
because he is making money on xanim.
--- Forwarded Message
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Podlipec)
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jun 23, 1998 at 03:39:07PM +0100, Charles Briscoe-Smith wrote:
little worried that mixing PIC and non-PIC code might do some other harm.
Does it? Or will it just make this shared object unsharable?
Everything I've ever heard suggests that the GGI people are correct---it
will merely be
I'm offering most of my packages. I will still maintain those of them,
which nobody wants to take over.
Maintenance of most these packages is trivial, upstream releases are
rare. Since some of them are related to Czech, Slovak, or Latin-2
environment, it could be good opportunity for someone
`jed' is an orphaned package. I'm considering to take its maintanence,
since I've found JED is a small and quick start editor, good for quick
editing of configuration files, etc. (I've wiped out all vis from my
disk, and ae+ed do not satisfy me fully:-). However I'm no way an
experienced JED
On 23 Jun 1998 17:20:09 +0200, Milan Zamazal wrote:
`jed' is an orphaned package. I'm considering to take its maintanence,
since I've found JED is a small and quick start editor, good for quick
editing of configuration files, etc. (I've wiped out all vis from my
disk, and ae+ed do not satisfy me
As usual, the list of Maintainer Contacts has become a bit dated.
Please go through http://www.debian.org/devel/maintainer_contacts.html
and report any changes you know of.
Also, Bruce was still listed as the contact for hardware donations in
donations.html so I changed it to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bruce was very good at making announcements on events affecting
Debian. These were the main source of entries to the news section
of the web page. Items posted to debian-announce still are included,
but their rate is much slower than in the past.
If you know of any good Debian news items, please
James Troup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How is it a ``poor'' solution?
Epochs solve the problem where version prefix b version prefix a
but where b should follow a.
The current problem can be solved by a version suffix and therefore
does not require an epoch.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On Tue, Jun 23, 1998 at 09:52:05AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
If people weren't being childish about the addition of 2 characters to the
changelog, which the users generally never see, we wouldn't be having this
discussion.
If we could keep this discussion to its technical merits, we
Brian White [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Just to be sure I understand... emacs20 has to be configured before
cvs-pcl is _installed_ or before cvs-pcl is _configured_?
Actually, now it seems like the problem in this case is that cvs-pcl
currently has a dependency on emacsen-common rather than
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The current problem can be solved by a version suffix and therefore
does not require an epoch.
Eh? Almost any version-number problem can be solved by a version
suffix[1]. What's your point? Are you saying we don't need epochs?
Or anyone using epochs is
Though I think we've found that hamm can get by as is (as long as
cvs-pcl, hyperlatex, and elib change their package dependencies), it
seems likely that there may be cases in the future where we really do
have to account for inter add-on dependencies when ordering the add-on
install/remove
On Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 10:36:11PM -0400, Shaleh wrote:
I have seen numerous people post Intentions to package apps that are
already being worked on. Please read the wnpp (it is made for a
reason). And when you do announce you intentions PLEASE cc wnpp so that
it gets added to the list.
Dale Scheetz writes:
I like the proposal much better. It also is reasonable enough that even
the glibc upstream maintainer might be encouraged to adopt our numbering
scheme.
I integrated this one in my 2nd summary in the dpkg and alpha/beta
versioning thread in deb-policy. You're welcomed
Philip Hands writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Dale Scheetz writes:
In the mean time, unless anyone can object within the next several
hours, I will construct and upload a new release of glibc with the
version number: 2.0.7r-1
I would advise for 2.0.7final instead. IMHO
I don't see the 2.0.7 boot disks for an i386 system on
master.debian.org yet. Could someone please remind me where to get
them from Enrique's computer? I don't seem to have that message any
more.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
On Tue, 23 Jun 1998, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 1998 at 08:32:41AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
On 23 Jun 1998, James Troup wrote:
(Sorry for the AOL, but...) Well said; I wish people would get over
their epoch-phobia already.
And I wish people would stop suggesting a
On Tue, Jun 23, 1998 at 08:47:53AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
On 23 Jun 1998 17:20:09 +0200, Milan Zamazal wrote:
`jed' is an orphaned package. I'm considering to take its maintanence,
since I've found JED is a small and quick start editor, good for quick
editing of configuration files, etc.
On Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 10:36:11PM -0400, Shaleh wrote:
I have seen numerous people post Intentions to package apps that are
already being worked on. Please read the wnpp (it is made for a
reason). And when you do announce you intentions PLEASE cc wnpp so that
it gets added to the list.
Yann == Yann Dirson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yann Needed: Some technical info about why people consider epochs as bad.
Yann It seems most arguments only used aesthetic reasons. Please someone
Yann correct me if I'm wrong.
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You'd be hard
James Troup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eh? Almost any version-number problem can be solved by a version
suffix[1].
Not where 1.0 follows 3.14, for example.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
James Troup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eh? Almost any version-number problem can be solved by a version
suffix[1].
Not where 1.0 follows 3.14, for example.
You clearly can, as I demonstrated in my footnote.
Anyway, this is obviously somewhat of a
On Tue, 23 Jun 1998, Yann Dirson wrote:
Dale Scheetz writes:
I like the proposal much better. It also is reasonable enough that even
the glibc upstream maintainer might be encouraged to adopt our numbering
scheme.
I integrated this one in my 2nd summary in the dpkg and alpha/beta
On Tue, Jun 23, 1998 at 12:26:58PM -0500, Douglas Bates wrote:
I don't see the 2.0.7 boot disks for an i386 system on
master.debian.org yet. Could someone please remind me where to get
them from Enrique's computer? I don't seem to have that message any
more.
I'm uploading them to master
James Troup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No; it ignores the dependencies when *unpacking* the packages but if
foo depends on bar, dpkg will run bar's postinst before foo's. Try it
and see.
OK, that makes sense. Then I suppose that the only place that the
dependency ordering is needed is in the
--On Tue, Jun 23, 1998 6:47 pm +0100 Adrian Bridgett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 10:36:11PM -0400, Shaleh wrote:
I have seen numerous people post Intentions to package apps that are
already being worked on. Please read the wnpp (it is made for a
reason). And when you
--On Tue, Jun 23, 1998 2:19 pm -0400 Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I integrated this one in my 2nd summary in the dpkg and alpha/beta
versioning thread in deb-policy. You're welcomed to comment other
points there !
I bearly have the time to keep up with debian-devel, and so,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 23 Jun 1998, James Troup wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The current problem can be solved by a version suffix and therefore
does not require an epoch.
Eh? Almost any version-number problem can be solved by a version
suffix[1].
On Tue, Jun 23, 1998 at 12:38:19PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I think that not only should bugs be marked by the
distributions they exist in, they should also be classified by
architecture;
Actually, I think we can do the same way more
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not where 1.0 follows 3.14, for example.
James Troup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You clearly can, as I demonstrated in my footnote.
No. If your footnote was applicable at all, it was not providing a
suffix to the current version number. Instead it was
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using epochs is adding things to the left, while using prefixes is
adding things to the right.
Most of your message was accurate, but I have a minor technical nit here:
prefixes, including epochs, are both to the left.
suffixes are to the right.
--
--On Tue, Jun 23, 1998 2:59 pm -0400 Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Anyway, this is obviously somewhat of a religious issue, and having
said that I whole heartedly agree with Manoj (that there are *zero*
technical arguments against epochs), I will now shut up and ignore
this thread.
On 23 Jun 1998, Douglas Bates wrote:
I don't see the 2.0.7 boot disks for an i386 system on
master.debian.org yet. Could someone please remind me where to get
them from Enrique's computer? I don't seem to have that message any
more.
I believe it is in:
On Tue, 23 Jun 1998, Jules Bean wrote:
--On Tue, Jun 23, 1998 2:19 pm -0400 Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I integrated this one in my 2nd summary in the dpkg and alpha/beta
versioning thread in deb-policy. You're welcomed to comment other
points there !
I bearly have the
On Tue, Jun 23, 1998 at 03:01:53PM -0400, Brandon Mitchell wrote:
On 23 Jun 1998, Douglas Bates wrote:
I don't see the 2.0.7 boot disks for an i386 system on
master.debian.org yet. Could someone please remind me where to get
them from Enrique's computer? I don't seem to have that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Tue, 23 Jun 1998, Raul Miller wrote:
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using epochs is adding things to the left, while using prefixes is
adding things to the right.
Ooops! I meant *suffixes* here, of course!
[ Thanks for the correction ]
On Tue, Jun 23, 1998 at 08:09:51PM +0200, Paul Seelig wrote:
Actually the true killer was the upgrade of the teTeX packages. It is
pretty hard to stand seeing three time in a row Running initex [...]
This will take some time on a 486DX-2/66 at the configuration stage.
This alone consumed
Are there any Debian users/developers at Rice University in Houstin,
Texas? My cousin came back home for summer vacation and I've set up his
computer running Debian. However, it's got an Ethernet card (EtherLink III
- set it up fine with the 3c509 module) and someone's going to have to set
it up
MZ == Milan Zamazal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MZ x11/xtoolwait - serializing startup of X applications
I can take this package, if there are no objections.
Ciao,
Martin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
Milan Zamazal writes:
`jed' is an orphaned package. I'm considering to take its maintanence,
since I've found JED is a small and quick start editor, good for quick
editing of configuration files, etc. (I've wiped out all vis from my
disk, and ae+ed do not satisfy me fully:-). However I'm
Wichert Akkerman writes:
Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I think that not only should bugs be marked by the
distributions they exist in, they should also be classified by
architecture;
Actually, I think we can do the same way more efficent. Each bug already
has a
As stated below, I'm enrolled at Rice, although I've been on leave this past
semester. A direct reply to the original message didn't work, so I'm
sending this all back to the list in hopes it gets to the right place.
Anyone else who wants to comment -- feel free, but I doubt most of it is
of any
On Tue, Jun 23, 1998 at 05:20:09PM +0200, Milan Zamazal wrote:
`jed' is an orphaned package. I'm considering to take its maintanence,
since I've found JED is a small and quick start editor, good for quick
editing of configuration files, etc. (I've wiped out all vis from my disk,
and ae+ed do
On Jun 23, Philip Hands decided to present us with:
1:2.0.8-0pre1.1
1:2.0.8-0pre1.2
1:2.0.8-0pre1.2.1 (NMU)
1:2.0.8-1
etc.
No, that's very bad, because it implies that the upstream source
is the same and the only difference is in the Debian packaging.
Wrong.
I think we need a
Now that debian is going to be using a nonstandard terminfo entry
for xterms, can the default colors be setup like a normal linux console,
black background with white foreground.
I liked this when the xterm was setup this way a while back. I
believe the reason for switching back
Or at least offer an xterm-cons or xterm-black-bg. Also, could someone PLEASE
figure out
the remaining options to make xterm behave graphically like a console?
I can't get the combination of bold and 16 colors to work correctly.
Dan
On Tue, Jun 23, 1998 at 05:43:54PM -0500, Alexander E. Apke
93 matches
Mail list logo
