On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 04:49:48AM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 03:01:57PM +1000, Brendan O'Dea wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 01:10:19PM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> > >Actually it's debatable whether flex "new" is maintained.
> >
> > I did a test build against the
On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 03:01:57PM +1000, Brendan O'Dea wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 01:10:19PM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> >Actually it's debatable whether flex "new" is maintained.
>
> I did a test build against the current version (2.6.4), and it no longer has
> the issue[0] which caused
On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 01:10:19PM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote:
>Actually it's debatable whether flex "new" is maintained.
I did a test build against the current version (2.6.4), and it no longer has
the issue[0] which caused me to revert to flex-old some time ago.
Some brief testing of a handful
28:20 PM
| Subject: Bug#932560: vile: Don't build against flex-old
| Source: vile
| Severity: normal
|
| Hi, as a maintainer of flex-old package I'm considering requesting
| removing it as obsolete and unmaintained version of flex. Your
| package Build-Depends on flex-old. Please update the packa
Source: vile
Severity: normal
Hi, as a maintainer of flex-old package I'm considering requesting
removing it as obsolete and unmaintained version of flex. Your
package Build-Depends on flex-old. Please update the package build
procedures to build e.g. with current flex (from package `flex`)
5 matches
Mail list logo
