| 1 |
No problem, send a message to gentoo-user+unsubscribe@g.o and |
| 2 |
you'll recieve them no longer. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
You are aware that you had to sign up in the first place though... right? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
On Mon, 29 May 2006, John Laremore wrote: |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> quit f'in email bombing me you arse holes. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> ________________________________________________________________________________ |
| 12 |
> From: Bo Ørsted Andresen <bo.andresen@××××.dk> |
| 13 |
> Reply-To: gentoo-user@l.g.o |
| 14 |
> To: gentoo-user@l.g.o |
| 15 |
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems |
| 16 |
> Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 00:10:25 +0200 |
| 17 |
> MIME-Version: 1.0 |
| 18 |
> Received: from robin.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102]) by |
| 19 |
> bay0-mc2-f10.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft |
| 20 |
> SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 28 May 2006 15:14:51 -0700 |
| 21 |
> Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])by |
| 22 |
> robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k4SMD7KS003610;Sun, |
| 23 |
> 28 May 2006 22:13:07 GMT |
| 24 |
> Received: from cicero2.cybercity.dk (cicero2.cybercity.dk |
| 25 |
> [212.242.40.53])by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id |
| 26 |
> k4SMALei017832for <gentoo-user@l.g.o>; Sun, 28 May 2006 |
| 27 |
> 22:10:21 GMT |
| 28 |
> Received: from user2.cybercity.dk (user2.cybercity.dk |
| 29 |
> [212.242.41.35])by cicero2.cybercity.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id |
| 30 |
> C1DA9244F08for <gentoo-user@l.g.o>; Mon, 29 May 2006 |
| 31 |
> 00:10:20 +0200 (CEST) |
| 32 |
> Received: from BA.zlin.dk (port78.ds1-abs.adsl.cybercity.dk |
| 33 |
> [212.242.227.17])by user2.cybercity.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id |
| 34 |
> 6BB172869D7for <gentoo-user@l.g.o>; Mon, 29 May 2006 |
| 35 |
> 00:10:20 +0200 (CEST) |
| 36 |
> >Sunday 28 May 2006 21:48 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin: |
| 37 |
> > > > This change could be a |
| 38 |
> > > > bugfix. By making your own digest you don't get this |
| 39 |
> bugfix... |
| 40 |
> > > |
| 41 |
> > > more probably - the mirror corrupted the file. Or someone |
| 42 |
> replaced it with |
| 43 |
> > > a hacked package. |
| 44 |
> > |
| 45 |
> >While that is possible I'm not really sure why you consider it |
| 46 |
> more likely. |
| 47 |
> > |
| 48 |
> >At least in my case this bug showed when I upgraded from |
| 49 |
> perl-cleaner-1.03 to |
| 50 |
> >perl-cleaner-1.03-r1. Those two ebuilds are identical and use the |
| 51 |
> same tar |
| 52 |
> >file as source. This means that when I originally (a couple of |
| 53 |
> weeks ago) |
| 54 |
> >installed 1.03 the digest fitted the other, smaller tar file, |
| 55 |
> which means |
| 56 |
> >that devs has approved both versions of that tar file). It did |
| 57 |
> install |
| 58 |
> >successfully (and seemed to work) so it couldn't be too corrupted. |
| 59 |
> > |
| 60 |
> >So while it is possible that the devs approved a file that |
| 61 |
> shouldn't have been |
| 62 |
> >approved, I prefer to think that upstream just did something |
| 63 |
> stupid by |
| 64 |
> >upgrading the package without a revision bump.. :) |
| 65 |
> > |
| 66 |
> >-- |
| 67 |
> >Bo Andresen |
| 68 |
> |
| 69 |
> ><< attach3 >> |
| 70 |
> |
| 71 |
> |
| 72 |
> ________________________________________________________________________________ |
| 73 |
> Join the new Messenger beta now -- gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
| 74 |
> |
Archives