On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 18:28:36 +0200
Buchan Milne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> es. In the first one, the name is autoconf, the version is 2.13, and
> the release is 14mdk. In the seconf one, the name is *autoconf2.5*,
> the version is 2.53, and the release is 3mdk
To be exact in autoconf2.5 the n
Stéphane Teletchéa wrote:
>
> You're joking ...
>
>
>>autoconf-2.13-14mdk
>>autoconf2.5-2.53-3mdk
>
> In the second one, the '-' is missing, or the second is a 2.5-2.53 version
> ???
Yes. In the first one, the name is autoconf, the version is 2.13, and
the release is 14mdk. In the seconf
Le Lundi 23 Septembre 2002 18:04, vous avez écrit :
> Le Lundi 23 Septembre 2002 17:43, Guillaume Rousse a écrit :
> > Le Lundi 23 Septembre 2002 17:37, vous avez écrit :
> > > I was just confused about the naming conventions :
> > > autoconf-1.3.xxx vs
> > > autoconf1.6.xxx (it seems to me the -
Le Lundi 23 Septembre 2002 17:43, Guillaume Rousse a écrit :
> Le Lundi 23 Septembre 2002 17:37, vous avez écrit :
> > I was just confused about the naming conventions :
> > autoconf-1.3.xxx vs
> > autoconf1.6.xxx (it seems to me the - is missing).
>
> No, you're confusing:
> autoconf-1.3 is name-
Le Lundi 23 Septembre 2002 17:37, vous avez écrit :
> I was just confused about the naming conventions :
> autoconf-1.3.xxx vs
> autoconf1.6.xxx (it seems to me the - is missing).
No, you're confusing:
autoconf-1.3 is name-version
autoconf1.6 is name only
Hre are complete name-version-release for
Le Lundi 23 Septembre 2002 15:44, Guillaume Rousse a écrit :
> Le Lundi 23 Septembre 2002 15:37, vous avez écrit :
> > Le Lundi 23 Septembre 2002 15:29, Guillaume Rousse a écrit :
> > > Le Lundi 23 Septembre 2002 15:19, Stéphane Teletchéa a écrit :
> > > > If i remeber well, there are two autoconf
Le Lundi 23 Septembre 2002 15:19, Stéphane Teletchéa a écrit :
> If i remeber well, there are two autoconf packages, and i think the problem
> is one is numbered autoconf-1.3.xxxmdk, and the other one
> autoconf1.6.xxx.mdk.
>
> Is it normal to have two packages of the same name.
They don't have sa
Stéphane Teletchéa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I meant two autoconf are needed ? (no backward compatibility ?)
You pointed it out. There is no backwards compatibility between
2.13 and 2.5x.
--
Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
Guillaume Rousse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> BTW, why use a wrapper instead of alternatives there ?
Because alternatives is meant to choose the best one when two are
installed, based on the version or whatever that makes the "best"
notion static. The wrapper is meant to choose the best one
acc
Le Lundi 23 Septembre 2002 15:37, vous avez écrit :
> Le Lundi 23 Septembre 2002 15:29, Guillaume Rousse a écrit :
> > Le Lundi 23 Septembre 2002 15:19, Stéphane Teletchéa a écrit :
> > > If i remeber well, there are two autoconf packages, and i think the
> > > problem is one is numbered autoconf-
Le Lundi 23 Septembre 2002 15:29, Guillaume Rousse a écrit :
> Le Lundi 23 Septembre 2002 15:19, Stéphane Teletchéa a écrit :
> > If i remeber well, there are two autoconf packages, and i think the
> > problem is one is numbered autoconf-1.3.xxxmdk, and the other one
> > autoconf1.6.xxx.mdk.
> >
>
If i remeber well, there are two autoconf packages, and i think the problem
is one is numbered autoconf-1.3.xxxmdk, and the other one autoconf1.6.xxx.mdk.
Is it normal to have two packages of the same name.
Stef
12 matches
Mail list logo
