On 9/2/2010 01:35, Charles Wilson wrote:
On 9/1/2010 11:44 AM, JonY wrote:
On 9/1/2010 23:15, Charles Wilson wrote:
On 8/31/2010 11:20 PM, JonY wrote:
On 9/1/2010 10:28, Charles Wilson wrote:
On 8/31/2010 8:52 PM, JonY wrote:
Strange, I'll try a rebuild. The former should be the correct
On 2010-09-08, at 11:31, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Cool, thanks. Your packaging looks good, so this package is ok for
upload. I was just wondering if you would like me to upload the package
as is for now, or if I should wait for the FlexDLL-enabled version?
I think you should upload this
On Sep 9 14:51, Damien Doligez wrote:
On 2010-09-08, at 11:31, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Cool, thanks. Your packaging looks good, so this package is ok for
upload. I was just wondering if you would like me to upload the package
as is for now, or if I should wait for the FlexDLL-enabled
Cool, thanks. Your packaging looks good, so this package is ok for
upload. I was just wondering if you would like me to upload the package
as is for now, or if I should wait for the FlexDLL-enabled version?
I think you should upload this version for the moment because I have
two
On 9/9/2010 6:10 AM, JonY wrote:
OK, we're amost there.
binutils and runtime are GTG.
gcc, headers, and pthreads are really close.
Everything rebuilds from source fine, and the uploaded packages actually
match the rebuilt versions (or vice versa). So that's all good. Plus, I
was able to
On 9/10/2010 07:09, Charles Wilson wrote:
On 9/9/2010 6:10 AM, JonY wrote:
OK, we're amost there.
binutils and runtime are GTG.
gcc, headers, and pthreads are really close.
Everything rebuilds from source fine, and the uploaded packages actually
match the rebuilt versions (or vice
