Am 18.03.2010 um 01:23 schrieb Daniel Johnson:
>
> On Mar 17, 2010, at 6:29 PM, Max Horn wrote:
>
>>
>> Am 17.03.2010 um 16:23 schrieb Daniel Johnson:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Following up to myself, I've now marked db42/db42-ssl as 10.4, 10.5 only.
>>> As the maintainer of spamprobe has been ina
On Mar 17, 2010, at 6:29 PM, Max Horn wrote:
>
> Am 17.03.2010 um 16:23 schrieb Daniel Johnson:
>
> [...]
>
>> Following up to myself, I've now marked db42/db42-ssl as 10.4, 10.5 only. As
>> the maintainer of spamprobe has been inactive for more than 5 years, I
>> switched it to db48 (it bui
Am 17.03.2010 um 16:23 schrieb Daniel Johnson:
[...]
> Following up to myself, I've now marked db42/db42-ssl as 10.4, 10.5 only. As
> the maintainer of spamprobe has been inactive for more than 5 years, I
> switched it to db48 (it builds fine) and notified him. db4 is now also gone.
> That le
On Mar 17, 2010, at 10:39 AM, Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> On Mar 17, 2010, at 9:24 AM, Daniel E. Macks wrote:
>
>> Daniel Macks said:
>>> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:29:24AM +0100, Max Horn wrote:
Am 15.03.2010 um 23:58 schrieb Daniel Johnson:
>
> As a follow up, I checked to see wh
On Mar 17, 2010, at 9:24 AM, Daniel E. Macks wrote:
> Daniel Macks said:
>> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:29:24AM +0100, Max Horn wrote:
>>> Am 15.03.2010 um 23:58 schrieb Daniel Johnson:
As a follow up, I checked to see what db* is being used.
>> [...]
>>> As for the rest: It sure would
Daniel Macks said:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:29:24AM +0100, Max Horn wrote:
>> Am 15.03.2010 um 23:58 schrieb Daniel Johnson:
>> >
>> > As a follow up, I checked to see what db* is being used.
> [...]
>> As for the rest: It sure would be nice if more of those could be converted
>> to newer ve
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:29:24AM +0100, Max Horn wrote:
> Am 15.03.2010 um 23:58 schrieb Daniel Johnson:
> >
> > As a follow up, I checked to see what db* is being used.
[...]
> As for the rest: It sure would be nice if more of those could be converted to
> newer versions.
>
>
> > db3:
> >
Am 15.03.2010 um 23:58 schrieb Daniel Johnson:
>
> On Mar 15, 2010, at 12:53 PM, Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Daniel Macks wrote:
>>> Two-level namespace *should* encapsulate things within each lib, but
>>> if one lib passes a struct or database to another, ther
On Mar 15, 2010, at 12:53 PM, Daniel Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Daniel Macks wrote:
>> Two-level namespace *should* encapsulate things within each lib, but
>> if one lib passes a struct or database to another, there could be
>> problems. With the loss of .la data (due to
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Daniel Macks wrote:
> Two-level namespace *should* encapsulate things within each lib, but
> if one lib passes a struct or database to another, there could be
> problems. With the loss of .la data (due to deleting those files or
> installing dpkg-base-files) there
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 03:55:15PM +0100, Max Horn wrote:
>
> This is certainly not a huge issue, but I still found it quite disturbing. Do
> I really need db44(-aes), db47(-aes) and db48(-aes) all at the same time?
> Hrmm... So I looked a bit, and discovered the following:
>
> * svn, libapru
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Max Horn wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> so last night I finally made the move from OS X 10.5 to 10.6. As part of
> that, I reinstalled Fink from scratch. This went mostly fine, but there were
> a couple of annoyances, one of which I want to describe here:
>
>
> I tried
Hi there,
so last night I finally made the move from OS X 10.5 to 10.6. As part of that,
I reinstalled Fink from scratch. This went mostly fine, but there were a couple
of annoyances, one of which I want to describe here:
I tried to install wireshark-ssl and xchat (which I maintain), and also
13 matches
Mail list logo
