Daniel E. Macks wrote:
>
> Would be great if someone could file a radar for this...I'm sure it's
> not the only package that's affected. I'm not Leopardified:(
Yeah, I just reproduced, should be fairly trivial to come up with a test
case for this. I'll volunteer to file the radar.
ld -exported_
Peter O'Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Martin Costabel wrote:
>> Peter O'Gorman wrote:
>> []
>>> Change the sed to match ${_S_}nmedit instead of ~nmedit and it should
>>> have some effect on the link line.
>>
>> I see, the ${_S_} is a line feed.
>>
>>> The symbols that are private extern shou
On 13 Dec 2007, at 01:54, Jean-François Mertens wrote:
> I obviously don't even want to respond to the other points !
There are times one would think this list needs a moderator..
Some language is unacceptable.
JF Mertens
-
After going through the CVS log of ming, I now see that I officially
am 100% at fault for the ming mess.
To htodd, who is the maintainer, I hope you can accept my humblest
apologies. I'm not gonna make excuses I wrongfully de maintained and
butchered your pkg. PLease feel free to take it b
On 13 Dec 2007, at 00:58, Jean-François Mertens wrote:
> Do you realise this means :
> 1) first resurrecting the old ming pkg you threw away, rebuild and
> reinstall it,
> and using that, build on my system all its deps (after finding them
> by grepping
> through the unstable tree) _ that is
it seems to have worked for pstoedit, so i hope it fixes all runtimes,
please let me know if you still get an error at run time, thanks. And
sorry again.
---
TS
http://southofheaven.org/
Chaos is the beginning and end, try dealing with the rest.
On 12-Dec-07, at 5:58 PM, TheSin wrote:
> And
yup that is what it means. 0.2 of ming is archaic and almost fully
depreciated, it doesn't even have a proper build system and never
really worked anyhow. 0.4.0 is required, 0.3.0 has huge problems.
And I'm trying to find debs now to test a fix to keep everyone happy.
Again I'm sorry for me
if you mean htodd, that was in a different branch that I had no idea
about.
But I started with the old ming.info file and I didn't remove the
maintainer, that is how it was in my rsync unstable dist. So if i did
steal it some weird way then I really am sorry. Trust me I don't want
to mai
I obviously don't even want to respond to the other points !
On 13 Dec 2007, at 01:22, TheSin wrote:
> Secondly there was no ming maintainer.
There was _ I'm well paid to know: cf my msg
Subject: Re: qt3 build issue was Re: Mac 10.5.1 fink install pstoedit
fails
to fink-users dated 2007-12-11
Firstly, sorry someone pissed in your corn flakes.
Secondly there was no ming maintainer.
Thirdly you don't need to old one, just need to see if it would fix
your runtime errors, since mine all work i don't re produce it. I was
just politely asking you to test it since I don't have the probl
On 12 Dec 2007, at 21:40, TheSin wrote:
> damn it the only one was .0.2.dylib, WTF is that for a dylib, okay
> I'll add a symlink in the build, sorry jfm, somehow things didn't
> break for me, but my system is full of updates ATM and I have no
> second one to test on, good thing this is in unstab
damn it the only one was .0.2.dylib, WTF is that for a dylib, okay
I'll add a symlink in the build, sorry jfm, somehow things didn't
break for me, but my system is full of updates ATM and I have no
second one to test on, good thing this is in unstable hey.
---
TS
http://southofheaven.org/
Cha
On 12 Dec 2007, at 05:59, Jean-François Mertens wrote:
> Independently of the offensive aspect of such a
> procedure vis-a-vis of ming's maintainer,
(Comment : it is really this that shocked me most !
and made me react in an angry manner ..)
> I see that:
>
> autotrace-bin depends on ming-shlibs
13 matches
Mail list logo
