On Wed, 2002-03-06 at 00:42, Frédéric Crozat wrote:
Le Wed, 06 Mar 2002 02:07:43 +0100, Bryan Paxton a écrit :
If you were reading the result of the rpmfind query, you'll see that the
ximian package is a GNOME 2 snapshot. It has nothing to do with Mandrake !
And if you are following
Bryan Paxton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This change is to keep compatibility with Ximian GNOME.
Ximian GNOME is a popular _distribution_ of GNOME. Mandrake is also a
popular distribution of GNU/Linux. Distributions that have such
popularity should not have a granular compatibility issue IMHO,
Le mar 05/03/2002 à 15:23, Bryan Paxton a écrit :
On Tue, 2002-03-05 at 07:39, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
Bryan Paxton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This change is to keep compatibility with Ximian GNOME.
Ximian GNOME is a popular _distribution_ of GNOME. Mandrake is also a
popular
On Tue, 2002-03-05 at 09:13, Frederic Crozat wrote:
Hrmmm, this is why I was looking for some type of logical OR to use
in a rpm spec file It appears, there simply isn't (from what I've
researched), but someone did have a kind of ad hoc way of reaching the
same goal, and that is to
On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 05:52:26PM -0600, Bryan Paxton wrote:
However, this does bring up in an interesting point. You say Mandrake
packages are not supposed to be backward compatible with older
versions of the distro. At a glance, that sounds harmless and logical
(I'm sure there are
On Tue, 2002-03-05 at 18:22, Ben Reser wrote:
On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 05:52:26PM -0600, Bryan Paxton wrote:
However, this does bring up in an interesting point You say Mandrake
packages are not supposed to be backward compatible with older
versions of the distro At a glance, that sounds
Le Wed, 06 Mar 2002 02:07:43 +0100, Bryan Paxton a écrit :
On Tue, 2002-03-05 at 18:22, Ben Reser wrote:
On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 05:52:26PM -0600, Bryan Paxton wrote:
However, this does bring up in an interesting point. You say
Mandrake
packages are not supposed to be backward
Bryan Paxton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 2002-03-03 at 00:45, David Walser wrote:
I know how you feel. I recently posted a patch for
rpmrc which they won't accept because they think it's
wrong, but I'm willing to bet almost every Mandrake
Linux user would disagree with them.
On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 05:39, Daouda LO wrote:
because we were a more lot young :)
heh! This is true! : )
Hey, don't be silly guys! We always accept patches when they are
relevant For the patch on xmmsspec, gc (as the maintainer of xmms)
have the full right to accept/reject your changes
On Sun, 2002-03-03 at 00:45, David Walser wrote:
I know how you feel I recently posted a patch for
rpmrc which they won't accept because they think it's
wrong, but I'm willing to bet almost every Mandrake
Linux user would disagree with them Apparently they
don't care
Hmmm I will
I'm tired, so I won't go on a _real_ long rant here : )
This patch changes part of the buildrequires in the latest xmms.spec.
This change is to keep compatibility with Ximian GNOME.
Ximian GNOME is a popular _distribution_ of GNOME. Mandrake is also a
popular distribution of GNU/Linux.
On 2 Mar 2002, Bryan Paxton wrote:
This patch changes part of the buildrequires in the latest xmms.spec.
[...]
Anyway, here's the patch, nice and small : )
-BuildRequires: libpanel_applet-devel libglib-devel libgtk+-devel libxml-devel
libvorbis-devel libogg-devel
+BuildRequires:
On Sat, 2002-03-02 at 10:16, RIP Deaddog wrote:
If you want to work on reverting the BR, then I guess you can
clean up the BuildRequires completely? It sounds to me that
there are so many unnecessary BuildRequires
Abel
Easier said than done A few things would need to be put in motion
1
I know how you feel. I recently posted a patch for
rpmrc which they won't accept because they think it's
wrong, but I'm willing to bet almost every Mandrake
Linux user would disagree with them. Apparently they
don't care.
--- Bryan Paxton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Easier said than done. A few
14 matches
Mail list logo
