At 23:06 Uhr -0800 26.02.2003, Ben Hines wrote:
Well, pogma at least read this and fixed his package, did anyone
else? Anyone else care? Is the shlibs field really that difficult to
get? Everyone clear on this? I better not see people updating
packages and doing it wrong. :)
Welcome in the real
At 22:54 Uhr -0800 26.02.2003, Ben Hines wrote:
I know you said you think it did, but really i don't think it does
work without the revision in the BuildDepends:
Found Python version 2.3
Warning: Missing libxml2-python
Enabling debugger
checking for libxml libraries = 2.5.2... configure: error:
At 12:19 Uhr -0800 20.02.2003, Jeff Whitaker wrote:
Update of /cvsroot/fink/dists/10.2/unstable/crypto/finkinfo
In directory sc8-pr-cvs1:/tmp/cvs-serv6689
Added Files:
python23-2.3-2.info python23-2.3-2.patch
Log Message:
New upstream (alpha) version.
--- NEW FILE: python23-2.3-2.info ---
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
I am gone from today until Monday evening. I know it might not be of
interest to anyone, but I am letting you know anyways. I will not be
able to do any announcement nor handle any press enquiries, so please
do that for me.
I have a lot of
WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE YOUR MESSAGE SEEN BY
OVER 15.4 MILLION OPT-IN, TARGETED PROSPECTS WEEKLY?
Below contains all the information you will ever need to market
your product or service on the Internet.
If you have a product, service, or message that you would like to get
out to Thousands,
At 23:07 Uhr -0800 26.02.2003, Ben Hines wrote:
Did you email the maintainer?
yes, but today, because yesterday our mailsystem went crazy ...
I did also send this to all because the qt path difference (last
column) is maybe related to fink ... and not only to doxygen ...
Roland
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Andrea Riciputi wrote:
On Thursday, Feb 27, 2003, at 12:16 Europe/Rome, Max Horn wrote:
Ho Hum, I have to wonder if it is a good idea to market python 2.3
Alpha 2 this way. People (like me) will see it and think gee, a new
python version w/o realizing that it's an
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Max Horn wrote:
Esp. once the real 2.3 is released (due June, see also
http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0283.html). Yes with the dpkg version
scheme, 2.3a comes after 2.3. However, now that we have epochs, this
isn't really a problem anymore... you can release 2.3a2,
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrea and Max: I have had users requesting a python23 package - that's
why I put it there (in unstable only). You can easily switch back to
python22 if you want - fink install python-2.2.2-4. And for what it's
worth, in my experience python23
On Thursday, Feb 27, 2003, at 17:19 Europe/Rome,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrea and Max: I have had users requesting a python23 package -
that's
why I put it there (in unstable only). You can easily switch back to
python22 if you want - fink install python-2.2.2-4. And for what
it's
worth,
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Andrea Riciputi wrote:
I agree with you v2.3 is quite stable, but as far as I can see the
problem is that I can't install some Python modules under v2.2 tree.
Andrea: I've renamed it 2.3a2 to make it clear that it's alpha.
When I try, for example, % fink install
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Benjamin Reed wrote:
Well, according to the X website, XFree86 4.3 is due to get tagged
tomorrow. Has anything been decided yet on how we are going to handle
the 4.3 upgrade?
Ben:
I propose the following:
1) add an xfree86-4.3 package which will requires dpkg -r
for the fink-developers:
i once submitted gael (Electronic design application for GNOME) and
it's dependencies, like dia-newcanvas. it also used pygtk2 which i
could not do right and asked for help. didn't get any reply. doesn't
matter, it's packaged now. so may i ask you the following:
I'm working on porting xscreensaver. Each saver module is actually a
stand-alone binary and has an associated .1 manpage, but the binaries are
installed in a private area (cf. $FINK/bin). The problem is that (at
least) one module has the same name as another binary already in Fink, and
so there is
14 matches
Mail list logo
