On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 01:55:22AM -0500, Brad wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Oct 1999, Damir J. Naden wrote:
> > Hi Brad; unless Mutt is confused, you wrote:
> > > Hmmm... exactly 80-column lines, more or less. 72 or 76 is much better
> > > though, it leaves room for replies.
> > Ooops, sorry, I don't know how that happened; my vimrc files specs 76 columns,
> > maybe I need separate command in muttrc?
> i was partially wrong too. You have 78 column lines, not 80 ;)
> As you can see the line above, with the two characters inserted for
> quoting the ',' hits the very right margin of an 80-column-width display.
Damir, are you sure mutt is using vim? If you have nvi installed and
haven't adjusted the alternatives vi will default to that and if you
normally use a shell alias to select your vi mutt won't pick that up.
> > And if upstream guys do their thing, we may be looking into 2.4 kernel
> > pretty soon- does that mean another Debian stable release will be one
> > step back ( when potato become stable it'll rely on 2.2 kernel).
> Depends if potato is frozen before they get 2.4 out. Vague rumors tell of
> a November target for a potato freeze, and a January release for 2.4... Of
> course, being rumors, these could easily be wrong.
I would hope that we would late at least a month before releasing with
a new kernel - assuming it worked well to start off with. Waiting for
2.4 and testing it would probably delay the release of Potato even more
than it is already.
> > Maybe we should have another directory then for up-to-date-stable,
> > which all could download from at their own risk (which we do anyway,
> > not like anyone is guaranteeing anything in the first place).
> This has been proposed, according to other posts in this thread. IIRC, the
> plan was to allow an unstable package into semi-stable only after X length
> of time without bug reports, etc.
That idea is intented to be closer to unstable than stable - at this
point, there would probably be as much hassle updating to the in-between
release as there is updating to Potato. Not that there's much hassle
with Potato right now.
> Netgod also supposedly keeps some unstable packages compiled for slink,
> and i hear the Gnome people make debs for stable of their latest releases.
The stable GNOME packages are actually produced by the Debian
maintainers - they're just distributed from the GNOME site.
> > I am no computer wizard. And when I read about all the development
> > currently going on in Linux world, people are forgetting that
> > semi-commercial applications ( like StarOffice and netscape) still
> > rely on libc6 and not new libc.
> libc6 is the same as glibc 2. StarOffice used to depend on glibc 2.0 (as
> opposed to the 2.1 in slink), but they fixed that AFAIK. Netscape has as
To explain it a bit more clearly: glibc 2.0 is binary compatible with
glibc 2.1. If programs break when linked against 2.1 then that is a bug
in the program (typically trying to use internal features).
--
Mark Brown mailto:broonie@tardis.ed.ac.uk (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
EUFS http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
Attachment:
pgpPoNrtOhgmp.pgp
Description: PGP signature