On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 01:25:44PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
Yes, I understand that, and I mostly agree. Now please write a lintian
warning for PT_GNU_STACK. Mass bug filing me even before a
Santiago Vila wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Bill Allombert wrote:
As far as I can see, this is the _only_ bug report by Greg Norris on the
PT_GNU_STACK issue! How can it be a mass bug filling ?
Because many of the packages I maintain are also built on woody.
Is there any good reason for that?
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 03:50:17PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Guillem Jover [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On another thread, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Could we automatically define some @linux@ or @any-i386@ variables the
same way shlidbs or other substitutions work?
That's
Don't be like that...:)
There is only one place with good soft around in the net - want to know where
it is ? instant here !
There is no instinct like that of the heart.
Hey man internet is a good thing - i found a site ocassionally today with good
soft packeges
and with
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 10:29:12PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
Greg: Ease of adding, and potentional negative benefits would be very
nice to have, and if it's going to be in policy, for lintian a way to
check for it.
Purpose:
PT_GNU_STACK is used to mark binaries which require an
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 11:45:24AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
type-handling already does all you ever want.
Except:
- its not in build-essential
- its not integrated into dpkg or the build system
So it may be fine, it doesn't actually do anything useful. If a
pre-existing program
6 matches
Mail list logo
