At 14:14 Uhr +0200 03.10.2002, Martin Costabel wrote:
>On jeudi, oct 3, 2002, at 11:05 Europe/Paris, Max Horn wrote:
>[]
>You missed the whole message, he is fine, he has the version from fink cvs.
>>
>>Oops, sorry! I was only looking at the quotations posted here. Sorry again.
>
>I apologize for
On jeudi, oct 3, 2002, at 11:05 Europe/Paris, Max Horn wrote:
[]
You missed the whole message, he is fine, he has the version from fink
cvs.
>
> Oops, sorry! I was only looking at the quotations posted here. Sorry
> again.
I apologize for reentering this thread on an even earlier stage, or
may
At 1:53 Uhr -0700 03.10.2002, Ben Hines wrote:
>On Thursday, October 3, 2002, at 01:35 AM, Max Horn wrote:
>
>>At 17:06 Uhr -0700 02.10.2002, Ben Hines wrote:
>>>On Wednesday, October 2, 2002, at 04:00 PM, Michael Feeney wrote:
>>>
Is it even possible to upgrade to fink 0.4.1 in 10.2.1? Or a
On Thursday, October 3, 2002, at 01:35 AM, Max Horn wrote:
> At 17:06 Uhr -0700 02.10.2002, Ben Hines wrote:
>> On Wednesday, October 2, 2002, at 04:00 PM, Michael Feeney wrote:
>>
>>> Is it even possible to upgrade to fink 0.4.1 in 10.2.1? Or am I
>>> (also) proceeding incorrectly?
>>>
>>
>>
At 17:06 Uhr -0700 02.10.2002, Ben Hines wrote:
>On Wednesday, October 2, 2002, at 04:00 PM, Michael Feeney wrote:
>
>>Is it even possible to upgrade to fink 0.4.1 in 10.2.1? Or am I
>>(also) proceeding incorrectly?
>>
>
>
>You are fine, you have the latest for 10.2
Uhm, yes, which means he is
On Wednesday, October 2, 2002, at 04:00 PM, Michael Feeney wrote:
> Is it even possible to upgrade to fink 0.4.1 in 10.2.1? Or am I (also)
> proceeding incorrectly?
>
>
You are fine, you have the latest for 10.2
devs: this confusion is because dists/VERSION still reads "0.4.0.cvs".
Perhap
Yes, 0.5.0pre.cvs sounds good to me...
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
___
Fink-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourc
