Larry Hall wrote:
I think there is value in the flexibility. I would suggest that
the default action would add the required dependencies. Anyone who
wants the broken dependencies certainly has the sophistication to understand
that an extra step or two is required to make this happen. But I
This is a bugfix release. It fixes 3rd party linking to the
libkpathsea dll, two configuration problems, and a packaging bug.
Please upload, and remove tetex-3.0.0-2, so that 3.0.0-3 enters the
[curr] release, and tetex-2.0.2-15 remains available in [prev].
Jan.
CHANGES
tetex-bin
On Thu, 5 May 2005, Brian Dessent wrote:
Larry Hall wrote:
I think there is value in the flexibility. I would suggest that
the default action would add the required dependencies. Anyone who
wants the broken dependencies certainly has the sophistication to understand
that an extra step
I have prepared packages for new upstream guile releases. Guile 1.6.5
has known gc problems.
Please also upload the hint files, so that 1.6.7-1 is [curr] and
1.7.2-1 is [test].
Jan
http://lilypond.org/cygwin/uploads/guile/setup.hint
Brian,
I noticed one thing, perhaps this was intentional: the Just Me and
DOS/text options stay at the bottom of the option group when you
resize or maximize the setup window. It looks a little silly, but if
that is the intent, then it is fine with me :)
The addition of the manifest makes the
http://cygwin.com/setup-snapshots/setup-2.497-alpha.exe
I've committed support for tooltips in setup. I would appreciate any
feedback on the wording of the text, the implementation, or reports of
it not working with older versions of windows.
For most things I use multiline tooltips.
Brian,
Would it be possible to hide the ZZZRemovedPackages category when in
Category view, without changing the dependency logic regarding this
category?
Also, would it be possible to sort this category to the bottom of the
list in all other views and ignore it when calculating the width to
On Thu, 5 May 2005, Brian Dessent wrote:
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
1) Do they work the same on Win9x? How about Win2k/NT?
I think so. But that's why I'm asking people to test it. :)
To answer my own question -- tested it earlier today on Win9x, and it
seemed to work just fine. There
Harold L Hunt II wrote:
Would it be possible to hide the ZZZRemovedPackages category when in
Category view, without changing the dependency logic regarding this
category?
Yes, in fact I've been meaning to bring this up. In terms of the end
user, there should be no reason at all for them to
I concur with the checkbox approach to hiding them altogether.
Much less complicated and provides a way out to weird users (whom are
the most likely to complain ;)
Harold
Brian Dessent wrote:
Harold L Hunt II wrote:
Would it be possible to hide the ZZZRemovedPackages category when in
Category
10 matches
Mail list logo
