It's not hard!
I was firstly curious why the packages weren't compliant with the
python policy, and then I found out that the package I had put into
10.3/unstable had been removed and replaced with an obsolete and
uncompliant version!!!
In the meantime, I'll just move the packages from 10.2-gc
Um.. this all started with me asking you to move everything to
10.3/stable. I don't see why its so hard. I'll just do it.
-Ben
On Feb 28, 2004, at 7:14 PM, Jeremy Higgs wrote:
Hmmm... well that is a bit of a kludge, but it's an old version.
10.2-gcc3.3 has newer (compliant, I hope) versions. W
On 29 Feb 2004, at 13:56, Ben Hines wrote:
On Feb 28, 2004, at 6:41 PM, Jeremy Higgs wrote:
On 29 Feb 2004, at 13:12, Ben Hines wrote:
On Feb 28, 2004, at 4:34 AM, Jeremy Higgs wrote:
OK... How come they aren't compliant? Sorry I haven't been keeping
up... I've started full-time work experienc
On Feb 28, 2004, at 6:41 PM, Jeremy Higgs wrote:
On 29 Feb 2004, at 13:12, Ben Hines wrote:
On Feb 28, 2004, at 4:34 AM, Jeremy Higgs wrote:
OK... How come they aren't compliant? Sorry I haven't been keeping
up... I've started full-time work experience, and have uni starting
next week on top o
On 29 Feb 2004, at 13:12, Ben Hines wrote:
On Feb 28, 2004, at 4:34 AM, Jeremy Higgs wrote:
OK... How come they aren't compliant? Sorry I haven't been keeping
up... I've started full-time work experience, and have uni starting
next week on top of that, so I've been very pre-occupied!
Since gra
On Feb 28, 2004, at 4:34 AM, Jeremy Higgs wrote:
OK... How come they aren't compliant? Sorry I haven't been keeping
up... I've started full-time work experience, and have uni starting
next week on top of that, so I've been very pre-occupied!
Since gramps seems to work fine, I can move gnome-pyt
On 29 Feb 2004, at 9:29, David R. Morrison wrote:
Jeremy Higgs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
OK... How come they aren't compliant? Sorry I haven't been keeping
up... I've started full-time work experience, and have uni starting
next week on top of that, so I've been very pre-occupied!
Since gramps s
Jeremy Higgs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK... How come they aren't compliant? Sorry I haven't been keeping
> up... I've started full-time work experience, and have uni starting
> next week on top of that, so I've been very pre-occupied!
>
> Since gramps seems to work fine, I can move gnome-py
I as mentioned in my reply to your email about pygtk2-py*, there was
some confusion about what version of you were talking about. It also
appears that a needed dependency, graphics/gtkglarea2, is not yet in
stable.
dan
On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 06:08:46PM -0800, Ben Hines wrote:
> gnome-python and
OK... How come they aren't compliant? Sorry I haven't been keeping
up... I've started full-time work experience, and have uni starting
next week on top of that, so I've been very pre-occupied!
Since gramps seems to work fine, I can move gnome-python2 to stable...
But I still don't get the issue
gnome-python and hence, gramps need to be removed from stable since
they aren't compliant with the python policy. The versions in unstable;
gramps, gnome-python2, pytgtk2-py23, pygtk2-py22 need to be moved to
stable. I have good reports from gramps users which depends heavily on
the pygtk and g
e86-shlibs kept getting installed over
people's Apple X11.
-- Dave
From: "Alexander K. Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Fink-devel] binary release plans
To: Fink-Developer devel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 11:24:03 -0500
Since this has been a
lexander K. Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [Fink-devel] binary release plans
> To: Fink-Developer devel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 11:24:03 -0500
>
> Since this has been a major topic on the mailing lists, the 4.2.1.1
> XFree86 packa
Hi Remi.
Sure, removing the dlcompat dependencies is one of the things which needs to
be done.
In some cases, this has already been done in the unstable tree, but not the
stable tree. So it's a bit unclear whether one should create a new stable
version, or move the current unstable version to st
Hi Dave,
On Feb 27, 2004, at 6:47 AM, David R. Morrison wrote:
I plan to start creating a binary release for 10.3 in about a week.
If you are aware of any of your packages in the 10.3/stable tree which
are
*not* suitable for binary release, please either fix them or remove
them
from that tree.
Since this has been a major topic on the mailing lists, the 4.2.1.1
XFree86 packages:
xfree86-base | rootless-(threaded)-(shlibs)
don't work on Panther and should be excluded from the Panther bindist.
Also, it appears that they can overwrite an external X11
installation--there have been quite
David R. Morrison wrote:
I plan to start creating a binary release for 10.3 in about a week.
If you are aware of any of your packages in the 10.3/stable tree which are
*not* suitable for binary release, please either fix them or remove them
from that tree.
And what I would have said the first tim
I plan to start creating a binary release for 10.3 in about a week.
If you are aware of any of your packages in the 10.3/stable tree which are
*not* suitable for binary release, please either fix them or remove them
from that tree.
Thanks,
Dave
--
18 matches
Mail list logo
