Re: [Fink-devel] libgnomeprint2.2-2.12.1-1001

2006-02-24 Thread Emily Jackson
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 16:22:26 +0100 Jean-François Mertens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 24 Feb 2006, at 14:53, Emily Jackson wrote: > > > gnome-print-ps2.c:43: ../libgnomeprint/gnome-font-private.h:67: > > error: parse error before > > 'FT_Face' ../libgnomeprint/gnome-font-private.h:67: > > The

Re: [Fink-devel] libgnomeprint2.2-2.12.1-1001

2006-02-24 Thread Jean-François Mertens
On 24 Feb 2006, at 14:53, Emily Jackson wrote: gnome-print-ps2.c:43: ../libgnomeprint/gnome-font-private.h:67: error: parse error before 'FT_Face' ../libgnomeprint/gnome-font-private.h:67: The safe bet is to remove freetype or freetype-hinting during the build. JF Mertens -

Re: [Fink-devel] libgnomeprint2.2-2.12.1-1001

2006-02-24 Thread Emily Jackson
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 00:26:43 -0500 Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anyway, the brand new libgnomeprint2.2-2.12.1-1001 package requires > a BuildDepends on bison. It fails to build with the system's version. > I assume the same is also true in the other trees. I have fink's bison insta

Re: [Fink-devel] libgnomeprint2.2-2.12.1-1001

2006-02-24 Thread Michèle Garoche
Le 24 févr. 2006 à 11:18, Daniel Macks a écrit : . It seems unlikely that an upstream package would have gone through a whole unstable branch series then a new stable series and have serious upgrade breakage or interface incompatibilities. So if they say "it's compatible", it's been tested b

Re: [Fink-devel] libgnomeprint2.2-2.12.1-1001

2006-02-24 Thread Daniel Macks
On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 10:25:14AM +0100, Mich?le Garoche wrote: > Le 24 f?vr. 2006 ? 09:53, Daniel Macks a ?crit : > >But seriously, we can't require of > >ourselves a higher level of quality than the uptream authors > I think the contrary, if obviously a package does not work properly, > either

Re: [Fink-devel] libgnomeprint2.2-2.12.1-1001

2006-02-24 Thread Michèle Garoche
Le 24 févr. 2006 à 09:53, Daniel Macks a écrit : But seriously, we can't require of ourselves a higher level of quality than the uptream authors I think the contrary, if obviously a package does not work properly, either it has not to be put in fink and bug reported to gnome, or it has to b

Re: [Fink-devel] libgnomeprint2.2-2.12.1-1001

2006-02-24 Thread Daniel Macks
On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 09:21:06AM +0100, Mich?le Garoche wrote: > > Le 24 f?vr. 2006 ? 09:08, Daniel Macks a ?crit : > > >On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 08:39:00AM +0100, Mich?le Garoche wrote: > >>Le 24 f?vr. 2006 ? 06:26, Daniel Johnson a ?crit : > >>> > >>>Anyway, the brand new libgnomeprint2.2-2.12

Re: [Fink-devel] libgnomeprint2.2-2.12.1-1001

2006-02-24 Thread Michèle Garoche
Le 24 févr. 2006 à 09:08, Daniel Macks a écrit : On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 08:39:00AM +0100, Mich?le Garoche wrote: Le 24 f?vr. 2006 ? 06:26, Daniel Johnson a ?crit : Anyway, the brand new libgnomeprint2.2-2.12.1-1001 package requires a BuildDepends on bison. It fails to build with the system'

Re: [Fink-devel] libgnomeprint2.2-2.12.1-1001

2006-02-24 Thread Daniel Macks
On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 08:39:00AM +0100, Mich?le Garoche wrote: > Le 24 f?vr. 2006 ? 06:26, Daniel Johnson a ?crit : > > > >Anyway, the brand new libgnomeprint2.2-2.12.1-1001 package requires > >a BuildDepends on bison. It fails to build with the system's > >version. I assume the same is also

Re: [Fink-devel] libgnomeprint2.2-2.12.1-1001

2006-02-23 Thread Michèle Garoche
Le 24 févr. 2006 à 06:26, Daniel Johnson a écrit : It's me again. And no I'm not looking to take over Gnome. :-) Anyway, the brand new libgnomeprint2.2-2.12.1-1001 package requires a BuildDepends on bison. It fails to build with the system's version. I assume the same is also true in the