On Jul 7 20:28, James R. Phillips wrote:
Core Maintainers,
Initial packaging of octave-forge is ready for upload. Packaging method is
method 2. This package depends only on octave. It is planned that a new
version will be released whenever octave is updated.
Files available at
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
This isn't good enough -- I think you do need a preremove script.
I've been trying to figure out why the no-preremove solution seems
wrong, and came up with the following scenario: suppose bash is
linked against an older
All,
I'm not certain if rebase is being actively maintained, since the last release
was over a year ago. If anyone is, I have a patch for rebaseall that adds
compiled octave shared libraries (*.oct) to the list of things that rebaseall
can rebase. This should make rebaseall work with octave
James R. Phillips wrote:
Though the package has already been uploaded, I have a few remarks:
octave-forge-2005.05.06-1.tar.bz2
- The functions in main/gsl are not included. Did you have
the gsl package installed during configuring? The configure script
detects gsl correctly.
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 09:50:14AM -0700, James R. Phillips wrote:
I'm not certain if rebase is being actively maintained, since the last
release was over a year ago. If anyone is, I have a patch for
rebaseall that adds compiled octave shared libraries (*.oct) to the
list of things that rebaseall
[redirecting to cygwin-apps]
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 07:27:55PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Jul 8 17:20, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
I don't think so but I don't think it will use cygwin's address anyway.
Ok. Maybe Corinna should do the same for openssl?
What?
On Jul 8 13:32, Christopher Faylor wrote:
[redirecting to cygwin-apps]
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 07:27:55PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Jul 8 17:20, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
I don't think so but I don't think it will use cygwin's address anyway.
Ok. Maybe
- Original Message -
From: Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com
Cc: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 1:32 PM
Subject: Observation for ALL maintainers who provide dlls (was Re: question
for perl maintainer)
[redirecting to cygwin-apps]
On
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 01:42:34PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
From: Christopher Faylor
Do we need to coordinate this among all package maintainers, maybe?
Maybe we could publish a list of all of the dlls in the system along
with standard base addresses for each and ask that maintainers make
--- Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
The more I think about this, the more I believe that we shouldn't have
to continually tell users to run rebaseall. Setting the base address
is something that should be done once, by the maintainer, not every
time a person installs a package.
Amen, but
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, James R. Phillips wrote:
--- Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
The more I think about this, the more I believe that we shouldn't have
to continually tell users to run rebaseall. Setting the base address
is something that should be done once, by the maintainer, not every
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Any plans to release a new zlib package to solve
http://www.cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CAN-2005-2096
? Various Linux distros have already released a patched version.
Updated zlib and mingw-zlib packages.
--
Chuck
12 matches
Mail list logo
