On 4/16/02 at 7:26 AM, Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-04-16 at 03:46, David Douthitt wrote:
> David,
> I think we should use the program's name, or place it in what RedHat
> calls "Summary". Personally I prefer the deb format, but it doesn't
> include summary/program name i
On 4/16/02 at 3:46 PM, Charles Steinkuehler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I guess so, but I sort of got the idea (perhaps incorrect)
> that there were packages that *did not* require a C
> library.
I'm sure there are...
> If that's the case, the above is misleading (to
> me it implies the packag
> > Charles,
> > Would this be acceptable?
> >
> > bin/packages + /glibc-2.0
> > |
> > + /glibc-2.1
> > |
> > + /glibc-any
>
> I guess so, but I sort of got the idea (perhaps incorrect)
> that there were
> packages that *did not* require a C li
Hi folks
I destroyed my LRP compilation platform some time ago. Now I would like
to forward bzflag packets, which almost certainly means running the relay:
http://www.bzflag.org/man-bzfrelay.html
Has anybody compiled this for Dachstein (or a compatible)?
- Brian
> Charles,
> Would this be acceptable?
>
> bin/packages + /glibc-2.0
> |
> + /glibc-2.1
> |
> + /glibc-any
I guess so, but I sort of got the idea (perhaps incorrect) that there were
packages that *did not* require a C library. If that's the cas
On 16 Apr 2002, Mike Noyes wrote:
[...]
> Everyone,
> Apparently it's a non-trivial task to determine the minor version of
> libc used for package creation. Tomorrow I'm going to start committing
> our packages to cvs with the following tree structure:
>
> bin/packages + /glibc2.0
>
On Tue, 2002-04-16 at 08:37, Charles Steinkuehler wrote:
> > I'll place all of the packages that require libc.so.6 in the glibc2.0
> > directory. The few packages that don't depend on any libc will be placed
> > in the bin/packages directory.
>
> How about using bin/packages/nolibc (or similar) i
Reply cc'd to the leaf-devel list
> I am building a open-source website for LRP. I am
> interested in featuring LEAF on my site. I am not sure if
> I need to ask permission to do so. Do I? Do you have any
> good suggestions for the site? Your help would be much
> appreciated. Thanks for your time
On Tue, 2002-04-16 at 09:46, guitarlynn wrote:
> > Who determines what keywords and categories apply to each package? I
> > believe these tags will cause confusion if there is no set
> > categorization template.
>
> Maybe there should be one file templated out with certain information,
> like sou
> Who determines what keywords and categories apply to each package? I
> believe these tags will cause confusion if there is no set
> categorization template.
Maybe there should be one file templated out with certain information,
like source version, package revision, packagename, glibc-required,
> Everyone,
> Apparently it's a non-trivial task to determine the minor version of
> libc used for package creation. Tomorrow I'm going to start committing
> our packages to cvs with the following tree structure:
>
> bin/packages + /glibc2.0
> |
> + /glibc2.1
>
> Shoul
On Mon, 2002-04-15 at 22:52, Jeff Newmiller wrote:
> On 15 Apr 2002, Mike Noyes wrote:
>
> > Everyone,
> > I'm still unable to decipher the libc minor version from output
> > generated by ldd. All of our packages that I have looked at so far use
> > libc major version 6. The output below is from
On Tue, 2002-04-16 at 03:46, David Douthitt wrote:
> On 4/14/02 at 11:20 AM, Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > David outlines a package description file in his
> > "Developing for LRP" guide. The format follows.
> > I propose the following changes:
>
> Comments follow...
>
> > use
On 4/14/02 at 11:20 AM, Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> David outlines a package description file in his
> "Developing for LRP" guide. The format follows.
>
> /var/lib/lrpkg/pkg.desc
> Name: upx
> Version: 1.20
> Release: 1
> Packager: David Douthitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Packaged: Wed J
14 matches
Mail list logo
