Hi,
Could someone please have a look at the sdl-gfx2 submission on the
tracker. The review comments were addressed in early October, and
there's just tumbleweeds there now. :-)
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1017325&group_id=17
203&atid=414256
I have today trivially up
On Jan 9, 2005, at 12:47 PM, Michèle Garoche wrote:
Dear David,
Le 9 janv. 2005, à 18:27, David R. Morrison a écrit :
I can't explain why certain packages aren't compiling with a post
gcc-3.3
compiler and other ones are. I'm only adding the flags when my beta
testing reveals a problem.
Could you
Dear David,
Le 9 janv. 2005, à 18:27, David R. Morrison a écrit :
I can't explain why certain packages aren't compiling with a post
gcc-3.3
compiler and other ones are. I'm only adding the flags when my beta
testing reveals a problem.
Could you tell me what was the problem with bluefish? I should
Dear Michele,
I can't explain why certain packages aren't compiling with a post gcc-3.3
compiler and other ones are. I'm only adding the flags when my beta
testing reveals a problem.
However, unlike the situation between gcc 3.1 and gcc 3.3, there is NO
binary compatibility issue between gcc 3.3
Le 9 janv. 2005, à 15:06, David R. Morrison a écrit :
Several of you have noticed the recent changes which I've made to a
number
of packages.
I may consider being in the bundle (if I dare say so).
Most of these changes ensure that the package in question
compiles using the gcc 3.3 compiler. (The
Dear Fink developers,
Several of you have noticed the recent changes which I've made to a number
of packages. Most of these changes ensure that the package in question
compiles using the gcc 3.3 compiler. (The changes involve adding gcc3.3
to BuildDepends, and then either modifying the CompileSc
