Um novo site está aparecendo na Internet.
É o CTAU - Central de Trabalhos
Acadêmico-Universitários.
Ainda estamos en construção, mas já vale dar uma olhada
nele.
Seu endereço? http://www.ctau.cjb.net
Entre e confira
___
Esta
mensagem não é um spam, visto que estará
Um novo site está aparecendo na Internet.
É o CTAU - Central de Trabalhos
Acadêmico-Universitários.
Ainda estamos en construção, mas já vale dar uma olhada
nele.
Seu endereço? http://www.ctau.cjb.net
Entre e confira
___
Esta
mensagem não é um spam, visto que estará
package: libc6
version: 2.3.1-3
...
Services restarted succesfully!
...
s/\!/./;s/sf/ssf/
package: libc6
version: 2.3.1-3
Preparing to replace libc6 2.2.5-14.2 (using .../libc6_2.3.1-3_i386.deb) ...
Unpacking replacement libc6 ...
Setting up libc6 (2.3.1-3) ...
Checking for services that may need to be restarted...Package `logind' is not
installed and no info is available.
Package `apa
I see that the man pages have been removed for being "way out of date."
What I don't understand is, why?
Is it not possible to update the man pages to say something along the
lines of "These pages are considered out of date. Please use 'info
glibc' instead" or even update them? Deleting them ju
package: libc6
version: 2.3.1-3
...
Services restarted succesfully!
...
s/\!/./;s/sf/ssf/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
package: libc6
version: 2.3.1-3
Preparing to replace libc6 2.2.5-14.2 (using .../libc6_2.3.1-3_i386.deb) ...
Unpacking replacement libc6 ...
Setting up libc6 (2.3.1-3) ...
Checking for services that may need to be restarted...Package `logind' is not
installed and no info is available.
Package `apa
I see that the man pages have been removed for being "way out of date."
What I don't understand is, why?
Is it not possible to update the man pages to say something along the
lines of "These pages are considered out of date. Please use 'info
glibc' instead" or even update them? Deleting them ju
Package: libc6-dev
Version: 2.3.1-3
Followup-For: Bug #108619
hi :)
undefined srandom hit me when trying to get isakmpd to compile on
debian.
well, it's only a warning: implicit declaration of function `srandom'
but anyway...
the following fixes it for me, don't know if this is according
to s
> "Wolfram" == Wolfram Gloger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> First, your patch also affects "portable dumper" builds which
>> build and (mostly) run fine. Is this intentional? Ie, is this
>> a generic problem with our allocator implementation, which
>> "just happened" to mani
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 12:00:57PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 10:12:24AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 01:51:47PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > >
> > > Technically the following solution should be possible (pseudocode):
> >
> > Not to mention that
Package: libc6-dev
Version: 2.3.1-3
Followup-For: Bug #108619
hi :)
undefined srandom hit me when trying to get isakmpd to compile on
debian.
well, it's only a warning: implicit declaration of function `srandom'
but anyway...
the following fixes it for me, don't know if this is according
to s
> "Wolfram" == Wolfram Gloger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> First, your patch also affects "portable dumper" builds which
>> build and (mostly) run fine. Is this intentional? Ie, is this
>> a generic problem with our allocator implementation, which
>> "just happened" to mani
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 12:00:57PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 10:12:24AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 01:51:47PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > >
> > > Technically the following solution should be possible (pseudocode):
> >
> > Not to mention that
reopen 165921
thanks
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 10:11:11AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 01:51:47PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > reopen 165921
> > thanks
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 01:18:14PM -0600, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> > >...
> > > Sorry, We cannot make li
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 10:12:24AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 01:51:47PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >
> > Technically the following solution should be possible (pseudocode):
>
> Not to mention that even if debconf is installed, nothing says that the
> system (especially
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reopen 165921
Bug#165921: libc6: Please use debconf for the "Restarting services" question
Bug reopened, originator not changed.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(ad
reopen 165921
thanks
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 10:11:11AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 01:51:47PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > reopen 165921
> > thanks
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 01:18:14PM -0600, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> > >...
> > > Sorry, We cannot make li
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 10:12:24AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 01:51:47PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >
> > Technically the following solution should be possible (pseudocode):
>
> Not to mention that even if debconf is installed, nothing says that the
> system (especially
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reopen 165921
Bug#165921: libc6: Please use debconf for the "Restarting services" question
Bug reopened, originator not changed.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(ad
20 matches
Mail list logo
