Hello,
Here is the website you wanted to visit
We carry only the highest quality Replica Watches
here are a few of your selections
MensPearlmaster Silver/GoldBandPearlWhiteFace
Submariner 50thAnniversarySpecialEdition
Submariner Silver-GoldBandSilverFace
http://mfq.besttimewatches.net
Hello,
Here is the website you wanted to visit
We carry only the highest quality Replica Watches
here are a few of your selections
Datejust Silver/GoldBand-GoldFace
MensPearlmaster Silver/GoldBandPearlWhiteFace
Submariner Silver-GoldBandBlueFace
http://nml.besttimewatches.net
Preparation of the next stable Debian GNU/Linux update
==
An up-to-date version is at http://people.debian.org/~joey/3.1r1/.
I am preparing the (most probably) last revision ever of the current
stable Debian distribution (woody) and will
Hi Joey,
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 09:18:16AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Preparation of the next stable Debian GNU/Linux update
==
An up-to-date version is at http://people.debian.org/~joey/3.1r1/.
I am preparing the (most probably) last
Steffen Grunewald wrote:
Hi Joey,
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 09:18:16AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Preparation of the next stable Debian GNU/Linux update
==
An up-to-date version is at http://people.debian.org/~joey/3.1r1/.
I am
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005, Martin Schulze wrote:
2. The package fixes a critical bug which can lead into data loss,
data corruption, or an overly broken system, or the package is
broken or not usable (anymore).
I've sent an updated package for gnome-system-monitor in my
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 09:18:16AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
The requirements for packages to get updated in stable are:
1. The package fixes a security problem. An advisory by our own
Security Team is required. Updates need to be approved by the
Security Team.
2. The
Am 2005-07-08 09:18:16, schrieb Martin Schulze:
Preparation of the next stable Debian GNU/Linux update
==
An up-to-date version is at http://people.debian.org/~joey/3.1r1/.
^
#include hallo.h
* Thomas Hood [Fri, Jul 08 2005, 04:16:01PM]:
If Debian continues to use the Release When Ready strategy then I would
suggest that the number of the next release be its ordinal in the
historical sequence of releases, which is 9 by my reckoning (buzz, rex,
bo, hamm, slink,
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 05:05:09PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
Then we would have
Debian 4.0 for etch, 4.1 for etch stable release 1, 4.2 for etch stable
release 2, 4.2a for etch stable release 2 with a minor CD mastering fix
(for example), etc.pp.
Does the release team agree with this
Eduard Bloch wrote:
Then we would have
Debian 4.0 for etch, 4.1 for etch stable release 1, 4.2 for etch stable
release 2, 4.2a for etch stable release 2 with a minor CD mastering fix
(for example), etc.pp.
Counting numbers start at one. The first update would be the second
release of
On 8.07.05, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Except that we're computer people, and we start counting at 0.
This is untrue imo. We start counting at 1, but start indexing at 0.
Heck, we even had a DebConf0 back in 2000.
This could afterwards be justified by the year number. :)
René -- advocates
martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Bob Proulx [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.07.08.1750 +0200]:
Counting numbers start at one.
Not in the computer world.
How do you explain RCS/CVS? The first revision after a checkin is
1.1. :-)
Bob
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
also sprach Bob Proulx [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.07.08.1854 +0200]:
How do you explain RCS/CVS?
I am sorry to everyone who tries. Same applies to subversion.
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
.''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: :' :proud Debian
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 09:50:35AM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
Eduard Bloch wrote:
Then we would have
Debian 4.0 for etch, 4.1 for etch stable release 1, 4.2 for etch stable
release 2, 4.2a for etch stable release 2 with a minor CD mastering fix
(for example), etc.pp.
Counting numbers
On 2005-07-08 Eduard Bloch wrote:
Debian 4.0 for etch, 4.1 for etch stable release 1, 4.2 for etch stable
release 2, 4.2a for etch stable release 2 with a minor CD mastering fix
(for example), etc.pp.
I hate letters in version strings, what about:
4.0etch release
4.1etch minor
People,
On 2005-07-08 Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Counting numbers start at one. The first update would be the second
release of etch. So really it should be 4.1 for the first release of
etch and 4.2 for the second release and so on.
Except that we're computer people, and we start counting
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 11:24:38AM -0400, sean finney wrote:
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 05:05:09PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
Then we would have
Debian 4.0 for etch, 4.1 for etch stable release 1, 4.2 for etch stable
release 2, 4.2a for etch stable release 2 with a minor CD mastering fix
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 05:05:09PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
Then we would have
Debian 4.0 for etch, 4.1 for etch stable release 1, 4.2 for etch stable
release 2, 4.2a for etch stable release 2 with a minor CD mastering fix
(for example), etc.pp.
Does the release team agree with this
martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Bob Proulx [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.07.08.1750 +0200]:
Counting numbers start at one.
Not in the computer world.
You confuse counting with addressing.
The first byte is always the first byte, but it starts at address zero.
Helmut Wollmersdorfer
--
To
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 11:22:12PM +0200, Anders Breindahl wrote:
On Friday 08 July 2005 17:05, Eduard Bloch wrote:
Debian 4.0 for etch, 4.1 for etch stable release 1, 4.2 for etch stable
release 2, 4.2a for etch stable release 2 with a minor CD mastering fix
(for example), etc.pp.
I
21 matches
Mail list logo
