Alexander,
After clean-install of Panther (and updated to 10.3.8), I installed
Fink and unstable version of gimp2 (2.0.0-5) via Fink. It compiled, but
the first run says I have fontconfig 1.0.2 and need fontconfig 2.2.0 or
higher. I checked fink list fontconfig and it replies fontconfig2-dev
On Mar 26, 2005, at 5:10 PM, Dave Vasilevsky wrote:
On Mar 16, 2005, at 2:39 PM, Lars Rosengreen wrote:
Yes, I think we do. I'll try to construct a list of packages that
may be affected.
Thanks Lars.
Here is a preliminary list. I have only had a chance to verify a few
of these, so there are
lftp doesn't link to ssl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [~]$ deplist lftp
=== (lftp) ===
Depends: expat-shlibs, gettext, libiconv, libncurses5-shlibs,
readline5-shlibs
---
TS
http://southofheaven.org/
Chaos is the beginning and end, try dealing with the rest.
On 29-Mar-05, at 10:09 AM, Lars Rosengreen
ahh that shouldn't be that thanks.
---
TS
http://southofheaven.org/
Chaos is the beginning and end, try dealing with the rest.
On 29-Mar-05, at 10:58 AM, Lars Rosengreen wrote:
On Mar 29, 2005, at 9:27 AM, TheSin wrote:
lftp doesn't link to ssl
Package: lftp
Version: 3.1.1
Revision: 10
###
Lars Rosengreen wrote:
To me the solution seems fairly simple: if a package has gpl (or lgpl)
in its license field and has a builddep on fink's openssl, then it
should no longer be included in the binary distribution, unless someone
can establish that the upstream authors permit linking against
(BOn Mar 29, 2005, at 8:38 AM, $BH~I'(B $BGO>l(B wrote:
(B
(B Alexander,
(B
(B After clean-install of Panther (and updated to 10.3.8), I installed
(B Fink and unstable version of gimp2 (2.0.0-5) via Fink. It compiled,
(B but the first run says I have fontconfig 1.0.2 and need
On Mar 29, 2005, at 1:41 PM, Freek Dijkstra wrote:
Lars Rosengreen wrote:
To me the solution seems fairly simple: if a package has gpl (or
lgpl) in its license field and has a builddep on fink's openssl, then
it should no longer be included in the binary distribution, unless
someone can
Could the info file for autoconf2.5 in 10.3 unstable be put in 10.3 stable, so that they would be exactly the same?
At the moment the checksum are different due to a -f option to rm lines:
in unstable:
rm -f %i/share/emacs/site-lisp/autoconf-mode.elc
rm -f
Here's my take on this licensing issue, for what it's worth.
I think we should explicitly indicate that authors of .info files are
*contributing* those files to the fink project when they submit them for
inclusion in the fink trees. As contributed parts of the whole, these
files may be modified
On Mar 29, 2005, at 5:27 PM, David R. Morrison wrote:
As far as retroactively doing this, it seems pretty clear to me (after
this
discussion) that we cannot do so. So, if there is general agreement
about how to proceed, we'll declare that all .info and .patch files
submitted after a certain date
Problem getting binary for esound via apt-get upgrade:
Failed to fetch
file:/sw/fink/dists/unstable/main/binary-darwin-powerpc//sound/
esound_0.2.35-8_darwin-powerpc.deb Size mismatch
--
Package manager version: 0.24.2
Distribution version: 0.7.1.rsync
Mac OS X version: 10.3.8
December 2001
Trevor Harmon wrote:
On Mar 28, 2005, at 2:23 AM, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
What about an almanac? A news broadcast? An encyclopedia? These are all
mere collections of facts. Are you trying to tell me that these cannot
be copyrighted?
Copyright law in the US covers creative expression, not
12 matches
Mail list logo
