On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 02:53:03PM +, Philip Blundell wrote:
On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 14:39, Jim Mintha wrote:
I would love to get rid of the two versions of the libraries. The
last time I believe there were problems with some packages not working
well with the UTF8 version. I have to
On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 14:39, Jim Mintha wrote:
I would love to get rid of the two versions of the libraries. The
last time I believe there were problems with some packages not working
well with the UTF8 version. I have to look at it again to remember
exactly what. This is the time to fix
On Sun, 2003-01-26 at 09:47, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
I've noticed some udebs require on libslang.so.1, while the cdebconf
slang frontend require libslang.so.1-UTF8. Should all udeb programs
and libraries link with UTF8 versions of libraries, or should we leave
it to the package
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 12:26:32PM +, Philip Blundell wrote:
On Sun, 2003-01-26 at 09:47, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
I've noticed some udebs require on libslang.so.1, while the cdebconf
slang frontend require libslang.so.1-UTF8. Should all udeb programs
and libraries link with UTF8
I've noticed some udebs require on libslang.so.1, while the cdebconf
slang frontend require libslang.so.1-UTF8. Should all udeb programs
and libraries link with UTF8 versions of libraries, or should we leave
it to the package maintainers?
I was kind of hoping that we would be able to
On Sat, 2003-01-25 at 10:51, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
I've noticed some udebs require on libslang.so.1, while the cdebconf
slang frontend require libslang.so.1-UTF8. Should all udeb programs
and libraries link with UTF8 versions of libraries, or should we leave
it to the package
6 matches
Mail list logo
