Kevin Horton wrote:
[]
I had tried twice before posting the original message, and got the same
failure. Both attempts used the same Terminal window. I tried again
now with a new Terminal window, and it built fine. Go figure.
You might have been playing with environment variables in the
Hi,
I use mac os 10.3.9 and fink 0.24.9 (distribution version 0.7.2.rsync).
I lauched an install of openoffice.org this morning, the packages dowload
takes a long time and are still in progress, but fink is currently
downloading mozilla-source-1.7.5.tar.bz2 which seems weird.
Is one of
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 06:08:23PM +0100, Pedro K wrote:
Hi,
So, I found the old Panther recipe for getting this to
work,
http://forums.macosxhints.com/showthread.php?s=threadid=21116
(towards the end of the page) and, it actually works!
I typed startx from console and it worked! (startx
On 24 Aug 2005, at 05:23, Clemence Magnien wrote:
Hi,
I use mac os 10.3.9 and fink 0.24.9 (distribution version
0.7.2.rsync).
I lauched an install of openoffice.org this morning, the packages
dowload
takes a long time and are still in progress, but fink is currently
downloading
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 06:06:47AM -0400, Kevin Horton wrote:
On 24 Aug 2005, at 05:23, Clemence Magnien wrote:
Hi,
I use mac os 10.3.9 and fink 0.24.9 (distribution version
0.7.2.rsync).
I lauched an install of openoffice.org this morning, the packages
dowload
takes a long time
Clemence Magnien wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 06:06:47AM -0400, Kevin Horton wrote:
On 24 Aug 2005, at 05:23, Clemence Magnien wrote:
Hi,
I use mac os 10.3.9 and fink 0.24.9 (distribution version
0.7.2.rsync).
I lauched an install of openoffice.org this morning, the packages
I understand that libofx has been ported into a shared library,
libofx-shlibs, which is readily available through fink. However,
according to the fink online database of packages, libofx should still
be available as a binary (is this list really up to date?). I cannot
seem to find it. Some
Hi Quincey,
I'm not quite sure what the issue is, but I will take a look at it when I
get some time. I'm pretty inundated with work at the moment (it's been
like that for a while), so quite a few of my packages have broken or are
outdated.
Thanks,
Jeremy.
On Wed, August 24, 2005 12:34 am,
On 8/23/05, Steven Stromer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand that libofx has been ported into a shared library,
libofx-shlibs, which is readily available through fink. However,
according to the fink online database of packages, libofx should still
be available as a binary (is this list
Hi,
Thanks for the tip! I'll try that (don't have my
laptop with me today).
Best wishes,
Pedro
--- Clemence Magnien
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 06:08:23PM +0100, Pedro K
wrote:
Hi,
So, I found the old Panther recipe for getting
this to
work,
Alexander K. Hansen wrote:
What OS are you running? And what methodology are you using? I was
able to install libofx on 10.4 via sudo apt-get install libofx, so
it's there and accessible. If you're trying to fink install it,
then it might not work, since there's apparently no source
Alexander K. Hansen wrote:
[]
What's interesting here is that on the first run the build conflict
wasn't able to be resolved automatically, but the auto-resolution did
work on the second run
In any case you can remove it. If you actually needed it as a
dependency Fink would complain when
[ccing the maintainer for additional info]
On 8/24/05, Steven Stromer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander K. Hansen wrote:
What OS are you running? And what methodology are you using? I was
able to install libofx on 10.4 via sudo apt-get install libofx, so
it's there and accessible.
Alexander K. Hansen wrote:
[]
I would suspect that libofx has been deprecated in favor of
libofx1--they replace each other anyway (but the shared libraries can
coexist)--and you should just install that
It seems that someone didn't pay attention there. They obsoleted libofx
in the
Martin Costabel wrote:
Alexander K. Hansen wrote:
[]
I would suspect that libofx has been deprecated in favor of
libofx1--they replace each other anyway (but the shared libraries can
coexist)--and you should just install that
It seems that someone didn't pay attention there. They obsoleted
Peter O'Gorman wrote:
Martin Costabel wrote:
Alexander K. Hansen wrote:
[]
I would suspect that libofx has been deprecated in favor of
libofx1--they replace each other anyway (but the shared libraries can
coexist)--and you should just install that
It seems that someone didn't pay
On 8/24/05, Steven Stromer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter O'Gorman wrote:
Martin Costabel wrote:
Alexander K. Hansen wrote:
[]
I would suspect that libofx has been deprecated in favor of
libofx1--they replace each other anyway (but the shared libraries can
coexist)--and you should
Once again trying to install gramps has met with failure. The only
thing that I can point to where the problem lies in the compile is this:
Warning: Too old version of gnome-vfs-2.0
Need 22.0.0, but 2.10.1 is installed
Gnome virtual file system version 22.x? I don't even think there
On 8/24/05, Curtis Vaughan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Once again trying to install gramps has met with failure. The only
thing that I can point to where the problem lies in the compile is this:
Warning: Too old version of gnome-vfs-2.0
Need 22.0.0, but 2.10.1 is installed
Gnome
Alexander K. Hansen wrote:
On 8/24/05, Steven Stromer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter O'Gorman wrote:
Martin Costabel wrote:
Alexander K. Hansen wrote:
[]
I would suspect that libofx has been deprecated in favor of
libofx1--they replace each other anyway (but the shared libraries can
20 matches
Mail list logo
