On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 09:29:06 +0100 "Yury V. Zaytsev" <y...@shurup.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 11:51 -0500, MK wrote: > > was less true 5-10 years ago. I installed Fedora 10-64 in January and > > (at least at that time) there was not even an .rpm package available > > -- I had to build from source, which I tend to do anyway, so big deal. > > This is NOT true: > > http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/releases/10/Everything/x86_64/os/Packages/mc-4.6.2-7.pre1.fc10.x86_64.rpm > > The date it became available is 30-Oct-2008, which means that if you > couldn't install it from base in January 2009, you clearly did something > wrong. Okay! Evidentally I didn't look hard enough. But it was not then (and I imagine is not now) part of the standard or "base" disto. Which is to say, I have an adulterated, direct from redhat, 2 DVD set right here, (ie. an 8gb "base" repository) which is what you get when you download "Fedora 10-64", and mc *is not* part of that. Probably I didn't look around the web at all, since I *prefer* building stuff like this from source anyway. But it had been a few years since I had installed a linux system, and I distinctly remember, like Chris Glur, being *shocked* that mc was not part of the default/base install...clearly this has blown slightly out of proportion in my mind ;) Anyway, I'm not blaming redhat or debian or anyone for that. BTW, mc is one of my very favourite pieces of software of all time, which I use constantly on a daily basis. So thanks much to the developers and maintainers for keeping it alive and well! -- MK <halfcountp...@intergate.com> _______________________________________________ Mc mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc
