On Thursday, February 6, 2003, at 10:06 PM, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
About half of the packages I install replace libpng3 with libpng. And
the other half replace libpng back with libpng3.
I wish they'd make up their mind.
Which is it? And why are these two packages so easily replaced with
About half of the packages I install replace libpng3 with libpng. And
the other half replace libpng back with libpng3.
I wish they'd make up their mind.
Which is it? And why are these two packages so easily replaced with
each other? Surely, libpng3 has to have more things than libpng,
right?
There was a big update this evening, but it looks like openssl097 has been
pulled temporarily.
--
Alexander K. Hansen
Associate Research Scientist, Columbia University
visiting MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center
Levitated Dipole Experiment
175 Albany Street, NW17-219
Cambridge, MA 02139-4213
O
sudo /sw/bin/fink update-all
Reading package info...
Information about 2151 packages read in 9 seconds.
WARNING: While resolving dependency "openssl097-shlibs" for package
"sitecopy-ssl-0.11.4-6", package "openssl097-shlibs" was not found.
Failed: Can't resolve dependency "o
Argh, sadly the idea ("appending a to the revision) in my previous
email is bogus, at least for any package with a patch file - fink
wouldn't find that patch anymore... sigh
Guess I'll write a script to make the rev up (semi) automatic
Max
OK seems I need to up all revision of the involved packages anyway -
if people have stable and unstable active, we'd otherwise be in the
quirky situation of having two equally reved sets of files with
different dependencies, which would be bad.
I will only change the revision by appending a ("R
I am going to check in openssl 0.9.7 any minute now. Along with it I
modified all packages that depend on openssl to depend on
openssl097-shlibs w/o increasing the revision (as announced earlier).
Please note this:
1) When you make subsequent release of crypto packages, verify that
you still h
David R. Morrison wrote:
Thanks, Martin, that is very useful.
Do you know if the same thing is needed to process the tex output files
from doxygen in general? Or is the only problem with the doxygen manual?
I don't have much experience with doxygen (read: looked at it yesterday
for the first
I'd like to update the X11 documentation. The primary problem that I
see is that there are still quite a few out-of-date version numbers
floating around (e.g. 4.2.0, when current-stable is 4.2.1.1), and a few
other issues. If anybody's got anything they'd like changed, feel free
to send it to me.
Thanks, Martin, that is very useful.
Do you know if the same thing is needed to process the tex output files
from doxygen in general? Or is the only problem with the doxygen manual?
-- Dave
Martin Costabel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On jeudi, fév 6, 2003, at 16:19 Europe/Paris, David R. M
At 3:01 Uhr +0900 07.02.2003, Masanori Sekino wrote:
I removed imlib and esound from the Depends line of gnome-libs, because
they are only for the BuildDepends line. At the same time, I added them
to the BuildDepends line of following packages. Some packages are synced
with stable.
Nice... now i
I removed imlib and esound from the Depends line of gnome-libs, because
they are only for the BuildDepends line. At the same time, I added them
to the BuildDepends line of following packages. Some packages are synced
with stable.
Thanks,
Changes to the BuildDepends line
=
On jeudi, fév 6, 2003, at 16:19 Europe/Paris, David R. Morrison wrote:
Various people are working on the problem, but until it is solved, I
would suggest that your *downgrade* your teTeX.
I hadn't seen your message when I just replied to -users and
-beginners. In fact, it is sufficient to downg
P.S. When downgrading teTeX like this, you may need to temporarily remove
other packages like doxygen, pdfscreen, and perhaps a few others.
-- Dave
---
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Som
Dear Viktor,
There are two different problems involved here. On the one hand, there
was something wrong with your upgrade if the pdflatex format file didn't
get built. On the other hand, several people have discovered in the
past few days the doxygen does not work properly with teTeX v.2.0
(beca
On Thursday, February 6, 2003, at 04:19 PM, Ben Hines wrote:
btw, i think the bind_at_load two-step stuff is only need for C++. It
shouldn't be in the C part of libtool. pogma?
Yes, I posted to the libtool list recently (last week?) asking why it
is done two step and -bind at load for all t
I think you need to run texhash - I have a manually installed jadetex
fmt file and had the same problem.
-jason
On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Viktor Haag wrote:
> David R. Morrison writes:
> > I've updated the new teTeX packages to version 2.0-2,
> > repairing some of the problems which the early testers
David R. Morrison writes:
> I've updated the new teTeX packages to version 2.0-2,
> repairing some of the problems which the early testers have
> pointed out (either on these lists, or privately). Thanks for
> helping to test!
>
> Please note that the old "bundle-tetex" package is now
> ob
everyone has perl so just embedded it as a default and only make 3 still.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> nagios-mysql-embeddedPerl
>>
>> nagios-postgresql-embe. and so on?
>
>If you want to do it, that's the way to go. Of course then you have 6
>packages already.
-=[JFH] Justin F.
At 8:11 Uhr +0100 06.02.2003, David wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Hello peeps.
Nagios (which was Netsaint) will be my first largish package and I
would like to know, how I should go about doing this properly. There
are a number of issues.
a) The configure scrip
At 7:50 Uhr +0100 06.02.2003, David wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
On Donnerstag, Februar 6, 2003, at 01:23 Uhr, Benjamin Reed wrote:
(so why that would be the case is beyond me right now).
Because they might wish to take advantage of the speed improvements
in
21 matches
Mail list logo
