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
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
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
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 (=
[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:
5 matches
Mail list logo