Hi,
looking at Zope info file I've read:
Depends: python21 (= 2.1.3-14), daemonic (= 20010902-1)
Why does it depends on python21 and not simply on python (that is
the latest Python version)?
Thanks,
Andrea.
---
Andrea Riciputi
Science is like sex: sometimes something useful comes out,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday, Jan 29, 2003, at 05:53 US/Eastern, Andrea Riciputi wrote:
Hi,
looking at Zope info file I've read:
Depends: python21 (= 2.1.3-14), daemonic (= 20010902-1)
Why does it depends on python21 and not simply on python (that is
the
A number of the things needed for tomcat are under a sun license that
basically removes all rights and then lists the exceptions that you're
allowed to do. They *appear* like they may actually be
redistributable, but I'm not entirely sure, I was wondering if I could
have your opinions on the
The latest round of updates to gnome components seems to have restored
icons and images to gnome. But some window managers -- I've tried
Sawfish and Enlightenment, twm is ok -- still seem to be having
problems, at least in gnome. Their title bars, resize icons, checkboxes
and other parts don't
Those features are probably created from png files, so I'm not too
surprised.
Sawfish looks to have a BuildDependency on libpng. as does
enlightenment, so they do indeed need to be reworked. Enlightenment is
unmaintained right now, but Max Horn is listed as the maintainer for
sawfish.
Actually,
Good point, Jim. We've got more work to do!
-- Dave
---
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
___
Would it be useful for me to generate a list of all packages that have a
BuildDepend on libpng?
On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 14:49, David R. Morrison wrote:
Good point, Jim. We've got more work to do!
-- Dave
---
This SF.NET email is
Uhm, so what am I supposed to do for sawfish or windowmaker (both
depend on libpng)? Obviously just removing the dependency is wrong.
Max
---
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2
A future issue for concern (after libpng vs. libpng3) is gtkhtml vs.
gtkhtml1.1 . A lot of the users have GNOME, and gnome-core-shlibs
depends on gtkhtml, as does gnucash (the two examples I actually have
installed). However, evolution-1.2 depends on gtkhtml1.1-shlibs .
This leads to a failed
Max,
You need to change libpng to libpng3, and also put versioned dependencies
to the latest unstable version of imlib and possibly also versioned
dependencies to other things like gnome-libs. (Since I don't fully
understand the problem, I'm not sure how much of the versioning is needed.)
I'm
At 17:12 Uhr -0500 29.01.2003, Alexander Hansen wrote:
A future issue for concern (after libpng vs. libpng3) is gtkhtml vs.
gtkhtml1.1 . A lot of the users have GNOME, and gnome-core-shlibs
depends on gtkhtml, as does gnucash (the two examples I actually have
installed). However, evolution-1.2
On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 17:46, Max Horn wrote:
At 17:12 Uhr -0500 29.01.2003, Alexander Hansen wrote:
A future issue for concern (after libpng vs. libpng3) is gtkhtml vs.
gtkhtml1.1 . A lot of the users have GNOME, and gnome-core-shlibs
depends on gtkhtml, as does gnucash (the two examples I
With regards to this disscussion:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200301/msg01676.html
- it seems we have to change the License field of mplayer to
restrictive as we are not allowed to distributed binaries of it.
Furthermore, we have to consider whether can afford to
Hi,
I tried to update my lyx-1.2.1-3 to 1.2.2-1. However, I have problems
downloading it: the main site ftp.lyx.org
curl -f -L -O ftp://ftp.lyx.org/pub/lyx/stable/lyx-1.2.2.tar.gz
curl: (19) lyx-1.2.2.tar.gz: No such file or directory
Then I tried a different mirror:
curl -f -L -O
On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 06:11 PM, Max Horn wrote:
With regards to this disscussion:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200301/
msg01676.html
- it seems we have to change the License field of mplayer to
restrictive as we are not allowed to distributed
On Donnerstag, Jänner 30, 2003, at 06:10 Uhr, Carsten Klapp wrote:
Yes this is a complicated case for those of us like me who are not
lawyers. ;) The license wording seems to speak specifically more to
end-users than packagers like fink.
Fortunately we have lawyers at our side, our legal
I made a fink install libgnomeui2-dev and :
It seems there's a problem with that package. Or am I doing something wrong?
By the way, I'd really like to have gnome2 working for next week, so I
can demo fink and gnome on Mac OS X at the solutions-Linux show in Paris
(France) next week! :-)
Do,
17 matches
Mail list logo
