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
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?
The current mklibs do not handle it if two libraries
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
7 matches
Mail list logo