On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Stew Benedict wrote:
SB> Why would you expect 8.0PPC to ship something different than 8.0x86?
I saw talk in the list archive from June where you said something about a
newer version when someone offered 0.9.1 to the people.
SB> [stewb@kenobi stewb]$ ls
SB> /mnt/BIG/distrib/t
On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Henrik Edlund wrote:
> As soon as I get this Mozilla to compile (I am without a graphical browser
> so far) I can report these things via bugzilla. I am trying to compile the
> SRPMS of Mozilla from 8.1release now. Compiling from mozilla.org source
> failed.
>
> When I looke
On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Henrik Edlund wrote:
HE> As soon as I get this Mozilla to compile (I am without a graphical
HE> browser so far) I can report these things via bugzilla. I am
HE> trying to compile the SRPMS of Mozilla from 8.1release now.
HE> Compiling from mozilla.org source failed.
After a f
On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Stew Benedict wrote:
SB> Not desired at all. This was reported in bugzilla and corrected in the
SB> subsequent version some time ago.
Also note that you need to add "version" "12" in that file, as that is the
"number" of the iBook2 (which is also a G3). There is "10|11" that
On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Henrik Edlund wrote:
> This file will only be run if it has the execute bit set. Default 8.0 does
> not have this, which means it will not run. Is this the documented/desired
> behaviour?
>
Not desired at all. This was reported in bugzilla and corrected in the
subsequent v
This file will only be run if it has the execute bit set. Default 8.0 does
not have this, which means it will not run. Is this the documented/desired
behaviour?
Henrik
