On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 02:04:36PM +0200, Thierry Vignaud wrote:
> > do we really need freeamp ? I thought freeamp and Zinf are the same
> > ... but zimf is less buggy (they share the same codebase, but the
> > project freeamp isn't active anymore ... look at this on the freamp
> > homepage : http
daniel beck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> do we really need freeamp ? I thought freeamp and Zinf are the same
> ... but zimf is less buggy (they share the same codebase, but the
> project freeamp isn't active anymore ... look at this on the freamp
> homepage : http://www.freeamp.org/index.html?mo
Am Montag, 1. Juli 2002, 13:54:06 Uhr MET, schrieb daniel beck:
> do we really need freeamp ? I thought freeamp and Zinf
> are the same ... but zimf is less buggy (they share
> the same codebase, but the project freeamp isn't
> active anymore ...
Right, that's why the zinf package obsoletes free
hi
do we really need freeamp ? I thought freeamp and Zinf
are the same ... but zimf is less buggy (they share
the same codebase, but the project freeamp isn't
active anymore ... look at this on the freamp homepage
: http://www.freeamp.org/index.html?mode=download)
daniel
