Re: [Fink-devel] Updated mplayer (#1885675)

2008-04-09 Thread Alexander Hansen
On Apr 3, 2008, at 6:54 AM, James Bunton wrote: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 07:20:39AM +1100, James Bunton wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Apologies for the cross-post to fink-users, hit the wrong address >> book entry :\ >> >> See this tracker item: >> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=414256

[Fink-devel] iPhone SDK beta3

2008-04-09 Thread Jack Howarth
Just to save everyone time, the iPhone SDK beta 3 release doesn't have the fix required to link libgcj of gcc42 or gcc43. However the fix has been made for the next beta release of the iPhone SDK. Jack -

Re: [Fink-devel] [Fwd: [Fink-auto-logs] Distfiles/Mastermirror Update Wed Apr 9 12:27:01 CEST 2008]

2008-04-09 Thread Benjamin Reed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 William Scott wrote: | The new tarball (not the software) is unversioned. It amazes me that people who release software still do that. :P | I just tried it (again) now with wget, and it worked immediately. | | Then with curl -O and it hung for awhil

Re: [Fink-devel] [Fwd: [Fink-auto-logs] Distfiles/Mastermirror Update Wed Apr 9 12:27:01 CEST 2008]

2008-04-09 Thread William Scott
The new tarball (not the software) is unversioned. The author moved to Janelia Farms. I just tried it (again) now with wget, and it worked immediately. Then with curl -O and it hung for awhile (more than 30 sec) as I stared at this email in pre-coffee stupor, and then it spontaneously start

Re: [Fink-devel] where to upload leopard compiled packaged binaries ?

2008-04-09 Thread Alexander K. Hansen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Marco Bonetti wrote: | On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 12:25 AM, DJamé Seddah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: |> But I don't get it. These are just genuine package created somewhere |> in 10.5/ hierarchy | the problem is there're variants for important system pac

Re: [Fink-devel] where to upload leopard compiled packaged binaries ?

2008-04-09 Thread Marco Bonetti
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 12:25 AM, DJamé Seddah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But I don't get it. These are just genuine package created somewhere > in 10.5/ hierarchy the problem is there're variants for important system package and it's not easy (possible?) for the end user to track down against w