I've also been keeping a package for my personal use. Just screwed up
updating it to the latest unified patch (19-6-3) though. Whoops.
I'm thinking that a version-patchlevel type scheme should do the trick.
ie:
1.0.0 is the source as is,
1.0.0.19.6.3 is the original source + the latest patch
1.1.
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 10:24:29AM +1000, Sam Johnston wrote:
> > Hmm, would he have a problem with a patched version, or just with 1.0.0?
>
> Matt assures me that the patched version breaks quite a few things
> (although he didn't specify what). He said it will take a few solid days
> for him to
> Hmm, would he have a problem with a patched version, or just with 1.0.0?
Matt assures me that the patched version breaks quite a few things
(although he didn't specify what). He said it will take a few solid days
for him to get it to where he wants it for a 1.1. I know he's busy though
with uni/
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 12:30:41AM +1000, Sam Johnston wrote:
> Brad,
>
> Thanks for your interest. Yes I do indeed plan to package rdesktop... in
> fact I have a 1.0.0 package ready for action, however I've refrained from
> uploading it on the grounds that the author, Matt Chapman, assures me th
Brad,
Thanks for your interest. Yes I do indeed plan to package rdesktop... in
fact I have a 1.0.0 package ready for action, however I've refrained from
uploading it on the grounds that the author, Matt Chapman, assures me that
some time in the not too distant future he will be merging the patche
Hi, are you still working on packaging rdesktop? I noticed that, though
it's GPL, it contains a few files with a non-free license (crypto/arith.c
crypto/arith.h, crypto/conf.h). If you're interested, I've got a patch to
get rid of them, so rdesktop could go into main. I've also got the whole
thi
6 matches
Mail list logo
