Re: recompile needed for xlib6g (= 3.3.5-1) instead of (= 3.3.2.3a-2) ?

1999-10-06 Thread Branden Robinson
On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 11:43:14AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote: Should I rebuild the i386 binaries with the new xlib6g-dev and upload them with .0.1 version number suffix? Or perhaps it doesn't matter? As far as xlib6g is concerned, I don't

Re: recompile needed for xlib6g (= 3.3.5-1) instead of (= 3.3.2.3a-2) ?

1999-10-06 Thread Santiago Vila
On Tue, 5 Oct 1999, Branden Robinson wrote: On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 11:43:14AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote: Should I rebuild the i386 binaries with the new xlib6g-dev and upload them with .0.1 version number suffix? Or perhaps it doesn't

Re: recompile needed for xlib6g (= 3.3.5-1) instead of (= 3.3.2.3a-2) ?

1999-10-05 Thread Santiago Vila
On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote: [posted this to -mentors 40 hours ago without an answer, so perhaps I'll try -devel instead] I recently uploaded i386 packages that were build on a slink system upgraded to potato's libc6 and C compilers (everything else is slink). These

Re: recompile needed for xlib6g (= 3.3.5-1) instead of (= 3.3.2.3a-2) ?

1999-10-05 Thread Peter S Galbraith
Santiago Vila wrote: I wrote I recently uploaded i386 packages that were build on a slink system upgraded to potato's libc6 and C compilers (everything else is slink). These packages (xcolmix and xplot) have this depends line: Depends: libc6 (= 2.1), libforms0.88, xlib6g (=

recompile needed for xlib6g (= 3.3.5-1) instead of (= 3.3.2.3a-2) ?

1999-10-01 Thread Peter S Galbraith
[posted this to -mentors 40 hours ago without an answer, so perhaps I'll try -devel instead] I recently uploaded i386 packages that were build on a slink system upgraded to potato's libc6 and C compilers (everything else is slink). These packages (xcolmix and xplot) have this depends line: