At 18:19 Uhr -0400 16.04.2002, Kyle Moffett wrote:
On Tuesday, April 16, 2002, at 06:00 PM, Max Horn wrote:
At 17:54 Uhr -0400 16.04.2002, Kyle Moffett wrote:
On Tuesday, April 16, 2002, at 09:46 AM, Max Horn wrote:
At 6:42 Uhr -0400 16.04.2002, Kyle Moffett wrote:
I feel kind of stupid now, but
At 2:58 Uhr +0200 17.04.2002, Kilian Koepsell wrote:
On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 05:30:55PM -0400, Chris Devers wrote:
[...]
Type: bundle
Depends: xfree86-base (= 4.2.0-4), xfree86-rootless (= 4.2.0-2)
Description: Prevents automatic update...
It's an interesting strategy, but still
On 17/4/02 5:35 PM, Max Horn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 2:58 Uhr +0200 17.04.2002, Kilian Koepsell wrote:
On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 05:30:55PM -0400, Chris Devers wrote:
[...]
Type: bundle
Depends: xfree86-base (= 4.2.0-4), xfree86-rootless (= 4.2.0-2)
Description: Prevents automatic
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Max Horn wrote:
At 10:22 Uhr -0400 17.04.2002, Chris Devers wrote:
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Max Horn wrote:
the following packages have a Restrictive license:
What is the working definition of restrictive? Non-GPL? Non-Berkeley?
(Arguably, GPL is much more restrictive
hi,
Just as a test case, I tried it on SDL.. chose sdl 1.2.3, and hit
=. (hold). It showed held in dselect. Then did a fink update-all,
and sdl 1.2.4 downloaded, and... dpkg installed it right over 1.2.3.
I had assumed it would build the deb and then stop.
i used to use the feature under
At 9:23 PM +0200 4/17/02, Max Horn wrote:
At 11:43 Uhr -0700 17.04.2002, Ben Hines wrote:
At 5:54 PM +1000 4/17/02, Jeremy Higgs wrote:
I'm pretty sure dpkg (or it might be apt) does this. Through dselect, at
least, you can 'hold' a package, and it is simply not upgraded (version or
revision)
At 15:05 Uhr -0400 17.04.2002, David R. Morrison wrote:
Concerning revtex, I have been unable to find any discussion of licensing
either within the download or on the web site. I assume that not distributing
the binary would then be the default option.
Indeed. Maybe somebody can contact them,
