On May 4, 2008, at 10:38 AM, Taco Hoekwater wrote:
> Thomas A. Schmitz wrote:
>>
>> I have two questions/problems with the new release:
>>
>> 1. for my linux box, I just grabbed the linux tarball, but the
>> binaries in there still declare they're version 1.003. Is that an
>> oversight, or are th
On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 10:38 AM, Taco Hoekwater wrote:
> Thomas A. Schmitz wrote:
> >
> > 1. general architecture specification: CFLAGS -arch ppc (for
> > powerpc) CFLAGS -arch ppc64(for the new 64bit binaries on
> > powerpc) CFLAGS -arch i386 (for intel) I did not check the ppc64
Thomas A. Schmitz wrote:
>
> I have two questions/problems with the new release:
>
> 1. for my linux box, I just grabbed the linux tarball, but the
> binaries in there still declare they're version 1.003. Is that an
> oversight, or are those indeed old binaries (and you forgot to pack
> the ne
On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 7:46 AM, Peter Münster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, May 03 2008, luigi scarso wrote:
>
>> > 1. for my linux box, I just grabbed the linux tarball, but the
>> > binaries in there still declare they're version 1.003. Is that an
>> > oversight, or are those indeed old bi
On Sat, May 03 2008, luigi scarso wrote:
> > 1. for my linux box, I just grabbed the linux tarball, but the
> > binaries in there still declare they're version 1.003. Is that an
> > oversight, or are those indeed old binaries (and you forgot to pack
> > the new ones? :-)
>
> # mpost
> This is Met
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 8:56 PM, Thomas A. Schmitz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On May 1, 2008, at 11:24 AM, Taco Hoekwater wrote:
>
>> The MetaPost team is happy to announce a new release of MetaPost:
>>
>> --
>> MetaPost 1.004
>
On May 1, 2008, at 11:24 AM, Taco Hoekwater wrote:
> The MetaPost team is happy to announce a new release of MetaPost:
>
> --
> MetaPost 1.004
> --
>
> The sourc
The MetaPost team is happy to announce a new release of MetaPost:
--
MetaPost 1.004
--
The sources and a win32 package can be downloaded immediately from
ht
