Dimitrie O. Paun a écrit:
On November 6, 2002 01:59 pm, Joerg Mayer wrote:
How about providing a distributions directory where the (in)official
maintainers for the distributions can just check in whatever they want
once they are found/named?
Let's just first find them, that's the hard part.
On November 6, 2002 01:59 pm, Joerg Mayer wrote:
How about providing a distributions directory where the (in)official
maintainers for the distributions can just check in whatever they want
once they are found/named?
Let's just first find them, that's the hard part. We can figure out
where to
Dimitrie O. Paun a écrit:
On November 7, 2002 10:42 am, Vincent Béron wrote:
I can take the position for RedHat (at least for 8.0). My base system is
stock, so there shouldn't be libs problems (at least for those following
the official updates).
OK, you're on. BTW, if you compile *C* code on
On November 7, 2002 10:42 am, Vincent Béron wrote:
I can take the position for RedHat (at least for 8.0). My base system is
stock, so there shouldn't be libs problems (at least for those following
the official updates).
OK, you're on. BTW, if you compile *C* code on RH8, is it OK on 7.x?
I
Vincent Béron a écrit:
Dimitrie O. Paun a écrit:
Should the starting point be the latest RH packaged Wine (including
their own patches), or start fresh with pristine 20021031?
What patches do they have???
IIRC, it was mostly in the launcher scripts, but I could be wrong. Wait
a sec,
Andreas Mohr a écrit:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 10:33:50AM -0500, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
On November 6, 2002 01:59 pm, Joerg Mayer wrote:
How about providing a distributions directory where the (in)official
maintainers for the distributions can just check in whatever they want
once they are
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 10:33:50AM -0500, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
On November 6, 2002 01:59 pm, Joerg Mayer wrote:
How about providing a distributions directory where the (in)official
maintainers for the distributions can just check in whatever they want
once they are found/named?
Let's
On November 7, 2002 11:11 am, Vincent Béron wrote:
- Copying a global config if none exists in $HOME/.wine
Hm. Don't know what to think about this one.
- Add a destdir to Make.rules.in (for RPM build)
I thought we don't need one.
- Some modifications to wineshelllink for RH specific things
On November 7, 2002 11:08 am, Andreas Mohr wrote:
I'd suggest a top-level directory like distrib/ or package/.
Hmm, or is there some kind of standard on naming such directories
to be used by the various package scripts ?
I don't think this is important, all we need is for Alexandre
to let them
On November 7, 2002 12:03 pm, Joerg Mayer wrote:
I think there is some misunderstanding as to what I intended with my
remark: Maintaining a package for a distro includes a spec file,
specific patches (e.g. to paths, configure, makefiles, other build
tools specific stuff), Icons, desktop files
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 11:30:40AM -0500, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
I don't think this is important, all we need is for Alexandre
to let them know where he wants the packages placed (via ftp in
a dir, via email, etc.)
I think there is some misunderstanding as to what I intended with my
remark:
Dimitrie O. Paun [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On November 7, 2002 12:03 pm, Joerg Mayer wrote:
I think there is some misunderstanding as to what I intended with my
remark: Maintaining a package for a distro includes a spec file,
specific patches (e.g. to paths, configure, makefiles, other
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
This refers to binary packages. I thought FreeBSD usually download
source, is it customary in *BSD world to expect precompiled binaries?
Yeah, at least FreeBSD is that user friendly. ;-)
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 09:30:10AM -0800, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
The spec files etc. should not be in the tree, that's right
Why shouldn't thy be in the tree? Actually, I prefer to install Software
(including self compiled sw) via rpm - it makes it much more comfortable
to switch versions and
On November 7, 2002 01:24 pm, Joerg Mayer wrote:
Why shouldn't thy be in the tree?
To avoid proliferation of badly built packages.
--
Dimi.
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 01:41:43PM -0500, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
To avoid proliferation of badly built packages.
Hello? Iff the spec file is bad, then I'd rather fix it then hide it
somewhere. I think I've heard that arguement before - was it one for
open source perhaps?
ciao
Jörg
--
On November 7, 2002 01:50 pm, Joerg Mayer wrote:
Hello? Iff the spec file is bad, then I'd rather fix it then hide it
somewhere. I think I've heard that arguement before - was it one for
open source perhaps?
Well, I will not go into this debate, but there are problems in naming
packages, etc.
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 07:24:18PM +0100, Joerg Mayer wrote:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 09:30:10AM -0800, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
The spec files etc. should not be in the tree, that's right
Why shouldn't thy be in the tree? Actually, I prefer to install Software
(including self compiled sw)
(I'm not sure this will get through to the list, as I am not subscribed,
so I am Cc:ing you.)
You wrote:
4. Enlist some 'official' distribution maintainers
(at the minimum RedHat, Suse, Mandrake, Debian)
Please also include FreeBSD, and feel free to contact me for
FreeBSD-related issues,
On November 6, 2002 04:10 am, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
You wrote:
4. Enlist some 'official' distribution maintainers
(at the minimum RedHat, Suse, Mandrake, Debian)
Please also include FreeBSD, and feel free to contact me for
FreeBSD-related issues, especially concerning this kind of
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 10:10:59AM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
You wrote:
4. Enlist some 'official' distribution maintainers
(at the minimum RedHat, Suse, Mandrake, Debian)
...
Many contributors (including myself) have been providing patches to
improve portability or support
What about reboot.so or similar support? Andreas said he was deffering
sending in an official patch. I was willing to take ownership over that
(whether from scratch, or based on work done so far) is Andreas isn't
interested any more.
Shachar
Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
This will
On November 2, 2002 11:23 am, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
What about reboot.so or similar support?
I've added it as item C6.
Andreas said he was deffering sending in an official patch.
I was willing to take ownership over that (whether from scratch,
or based on work done so far) is Andreas
At the moment I think it will let you browse the registry but not edit it from the
GUI. Rob has
agreed to relicense his work but atm he and I are short on time and working on other
things. I can
do a code drop to you guys if someone on the WINE side has the time to adopt it and
merge. If not
it
On November 2, 2002 03:17 pm, Steven Edwards wrote:
At the moment I think it will let you browse the registry but not edit it
from the GUI. Rob has agreed to relicense his work but atm he and I are
short on time and working on other things. I can do a code drop to you guys
if someone on the
In the reactos rosapps source tree we have started on a front-end for regedit.exe that
uses the
regedit from wine/programs. Would you guys like this for 0.9/1.0? If so, I am sure
RobD would
relicense as his work is based on the LGPL work.
Thanks
Steven
--- Dimitrie O. Paun [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On November 1, 2002 09:17 pm, Steven Edwards wrote:
In the reactos rosapps source tree we have started on a front-end for
regedit.exe that uses the regedit from wine/programs. Would you guys like
this for 0.9/1.0? If so, I am sure RobD would relicense as his work is
based on the LGPL work.
I
27 matches
Mail list logo
