than $EDITOR/$PAGER with user intervention.
This approach translate as if I don't know whats going on, give me the
upstream author's default, otherwise, give me my favorite editor unless
I've already specified that it doesn't work well for this application.
Britton Kerin
__
GNU GPL: The Source
, no other data really
needed. I'll make that change.
I don't like this. The pages listed will end up being wrong half the time
and google can find homepages very well and everybody knows it, so what is
the point in adding this?
Britton Kerin
I second or third this or whatever. There is a bit of duplication of
information but both dpkg -L and .packlist are generated automaticly so
who cares.
Probably somebody who knows how to make official policy proposals should
propose this.
Britton Kerin
__
GNU GPL: The Source will be with you
out that a page corresponding to a binary corresponding to
an installed undocumented package has been requested, and respond with
appropriate pointers, I guess there is no problem.
Britton
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Chris Waters wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:22:58PM -0900, Britton wrote:
Along
users may be helped by these pointers.
Britton Kerin
__
GNU GPL: The Source will be with you... always.
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:14:50AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
There is a proposal under consideration for changing the
undocumented(7
I have the same issue with my application. I second this.
Britton Kerin
__
GNU GPL: The Source will be with you... always.
On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, David B Harris wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.6.0
Severity: wishlist
(I'm subscribed to [EMAIL PROTECTED], no need to CC: me
as that is true, we're doomed anyway, policy or no policy.
Britton
nmh, the potential for confusion is significant. But perhaps
this is an mh-e bug. If there is no way to deliver a message or it is
considered not worthwhile, fine.
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Chris Waters wrote:
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 01:29:04AM -0900, Britton wrote:
I don't think it would
anything anymore, or it might be a real valid use.
That is the big concern I have with the quick invention of a hierarchical
task system or the like is that it seems like it would likely end up
redundant with what we already have.
Britton
to make sense to merge the dev and the use tasks. Speaking for
myself, if am being lazy and want to 'do some Tcltk tasks' I want both the
use and development packages by default.
Britton
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
[ I'm dropping the -devel cc in the hope of having a useful discussion
In other words, we have no way to control what baddies do with
Debian. The best we can do is make it easy and convenient for
goodies to do the right thing (whatever that may be). The entire
discussion about trying to prevent bug report hoarding is futile and
moot -- we have no control over
.
which I agree is a serious problem.
Britton
to see if the
problem has already been fixed.
Or is the whole idea of forking bug reports considered heresy?
Britton
. I won't bother with capabilities
until they get rammed down my throat, and I kind of hope debian isn't the
first to do the ramming.
Britton
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/libs/security/linux-privs/
has some info, the README has some pointers as well.
/usr/include/linux/capability.h is well commented and tells you the
different capabilities that are available.
Britton Kerin
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Jonathan D. Proulx wrote:
Hi
On 28 Oct 1997, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
Britton == Britton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Britton Good individuals will almost invariably harbor a few bad
Britton individual ideas, for whatever reason. This is especially
Britton true in the technical fields. The process appears
On Mon, 27 Oct 1997, Glenn Amerine wrote:
M == M W Blunier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
M On 27 Oct 1997, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
What problems are term limits supposed to solve, exactly?
M They prevent the voters from re-electing someone that due to
M his entrenchment
I think you are right there is not much left to be said. However, it is
comforting to note that this one ugly thread is the only I have seen in
all my time on the Debian lists. Looked at in that light it's sort of
reassuring. If bad threads are so incidental, I can comfortably ignore
them.
On Mon, 27 Oct 1997, Syrus Nemat-Nasser wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 1997, Richard G. Roberto wrote:
[snip]
PROPOSAL FOR TERM LIMITS
I propose that all elected posts in the Debian organization
be subject to the following term limits:
I actually like this proposal. I have no problem with
On 24 Oct 1997, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
Kai == Kai Henningsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Kai So then here's a proposal for a policy:
Kai If a list participant (who is otherwise eligible for the list,
Kai like being a project member if the list is debian-private)
Kai undertakes an
I would like to commend the below post as being the only one so far to
adopt a peaceful tone. The other responses I've seen are vicious. As for
just ignoring Dave's posts, as someone proposed after bashing Dave again,
it's too late for that folks. The feedeing frezy has already happened.
seen a clear example of this yet, and don't expect to, I'm
delighted with the work the devopers have done so far), it may allow the
situation to deteriorate significantly before reconcilliation can be
achieved. Closed lists fuel the fears of the last item in the paranoid
(or over-cautios).
Britton
22 matches
Mail list logo
