On Fri, 8 Dec 1995, Jeff Noxon wrote:
If the ncurses guys are going to keep blowing off binary compatibility,
then perhaps we should not mess with ncurses at all.
I suspect, especially now that we've got the package load spread around
more, that Debian will be able to keep up.
I'm not really
On Fri, 8 Dec 1995, Jeff Noxon wrote:
If the ncurses guys are going to keep blowing off binary compatibility,
then perhaps we should not mess with ncurses at all.
I suspect, especially now that we've got the package load spread around
more, that Debian will be able to keep up.
I'm just
On Thu, 7 Dec 1995, David Engel wrote:
ncurses2-1.9.7a-1.deb will be the shared library package. It is ncurses2
because the major portion of the soname is 2. It will depend on libc5 and
ncurses-base.
This should be ncurses21-* (or ncurses2.1-*). As was already noted,
the major version
The following problem reports have not yet been marked as `taken up'
by a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OVER 10 MONTHS OLD - ATTENTION IS REQUIRED:
Ref PackageKeywords/Subject Package maintainer
379 mount Repeatable mount(1) problem wi Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Someone told me that Infomagic has announced a CD containing Debian 1.0,
available in about a week. This would be a real disaster, since 1.0 is far
from ready for anyone but a developer to use it. I will contact Infomagic,
and I think we'd better write an announcement to linux-announce after
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Ferguson)
I also feel that with 1.0 and all the new developers (myself included) that
all the normal users out there that would like to use 1.0 because of all the
new packages in there. However, if we dont leave open 1.0 to people who
arent devolpers (but wish to
I was going to suggest with all these people querying about 1.0 that we have
an an account on ftp.debian.org with access to debian-1.0 directory so we
lock out normal public ftp access. I myself have noticed quite a few people
coming in and nabbing 1.0 packages thinking that they were the ones to
Package: gnuplot
Version: 3.5
Revision: 3
gnuplot's term.h has the define for FIG commented out. So no 'fig' or 'bfig'
terminals for the portable fig graphics language can be generated. That's a
pity as Debian has the xfig and transfig packages to use fig graphics. It
compiles fine with FIG
If the ncurses guys are going to keep blowing off binary compatibility,
then perhaps we should not mess with ncurses at all.
I suspect, especially now that we've got the package load spread around
more, that Debian will be able to keep up.
I'm just concerned that this is a losing
I'll be uploading the new shared-lib ELF ncurses package(s) within the
hour (just as soon as I rebuild the dist files to get rid of a few
spurious nohup.out files I left behind...).
I think I've got all bases covered, but I'd certainly not mind having a
few especially adventurous souls
Robert Leslie writes:
Robert I don't know about other mirrors, but AFAICT tsx-11.mit.edu
Robert doesn't even carry the 0.93R6 release any more. It only offers
Robert debian-1.0.
It's getting jucier by the minute:
This domain has a local wuarchive mirror. Wuarchive mirrors tsx-11, along
I think we should deprecate 1.0 and bump the version number to 1.1, so that
authentic copies of the release are not confused with the one on the Infomagic
CD.
I still haven't heard from Ian Murdock, who is moving his residence and no
doubt busy. Does anyone have a way for me to reach him?
Bruce Perens writes:
Bruce Yes, a code name would be a good idea. Let's hold off on that until
Bruce Ian Murdock can do it - I've stuck my neck out enough today.
We could also hide in private/project.
--
Dirk Eddelb|ttelhttp://qed.econ.queensu.ca/~edd
Perhaps we should adopt a different naming convention for unreleased
versions. E.g. instead of 1.0, call it 0.93+0.07, or 0.9x-unstable.
--
Raul
14 matches
Mail list logo
