Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
A few weeks ago, libpng10-0 was removed from the archive. A
consequence of this was that all gnome-1 packages (and there are a
number still around) instantly became FTBFS.
(s/FTBFS/uninstallable?)
No,
Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oh!, the irony.
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/09/msg01242.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/09/msg01246.html)
Unlike Joey Hess, I did not say that people who wait for the bug
report are remiss or being bad people.
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
A few weeks ago, libpng10-0 was removed from the archive. A
consequence of this was that all gnome-1 packages (and there are a
number still around) instantly became FTBFS.
(s/FTBFS/uninstallable?)
Packages which link against
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 12:00:44PM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
A few weeks ago, libpng10-0 was removed from the archive. A
consequence of this was that all gnome-1 packages (and there are a
number still around) instantly became FTBFS.
* Thomas Bushnell BSG [Thu, 06 Oct 2005 18:53:34 -0700]:
Please recompile and upload packages which you maintain as these
versions become available on the arch you use for development work.
When you have recompiled, please *check* to make sure that the only
libpng linked into your package is
A few weeks ago, libpng10-0 was removed from the archive. A
consequence of this was that all gnome-1 packages (and there are a
number still around) instantly became FTBFS.
I am now the de-facto gnome-1 tsar, but I don't intend to do much
other than keep things limping along. I am doing this
6 matches
Mail list logo
