At 16:47 Uhr -0700 24.09.2002, Ben Hines wrote:
>On Tuesday, September 24, 2002, at 04:25 PM, Max Horn wrote:
>>
>>With Fink 0.4.1, Mac OS X 10.1 is still the operating system of
>>choice. In fact this will be the last full release of Fink to still
>>support System 10.2. For nowSsystem 10.2 is
On Thursday, Sep 26, 2002, at 01:26 Europe/Brussels, Ben Hines wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, September 25, 2002, at 09:42 AM, jfm wrote:
>>
>> Finally, only 2 packages 'depend' on libxpm : swi-prolog and wmmail .
>> Do they really need it ? Or would the lib from X11 be OK too ?
>> Would it be possib
Thanks for diagnosing this problem: I had noticed it affecting fvwm2 at some
point, but was never able to accurately determine what was going on.
I have created modified versions of the swi-prolog and wmmail packages
which do not depend on libxpm, and they both build fine on 10.1 and 10.2;
I will
Fink has been listed on a new O'Reilly site, OSDir.com, and we've been
invited to add a link or button to Fink's homepage allowing users to
rate Fink at that site.
Any opinions, pro or con, about whether to do this? Or about where to
put the button or link on the webpage?
-- Dave
On Friday, Sep 20, 2002, at 01:07 Australia/Melbourne, David R.
Morrison wrote:
> You've hit on the important point, here. We want fink packages to
> compile the
> same way on everybody's system, no matter what they have installed.
> What this
> implies is: if the configure file will behave
Ben Hines has made a nice list of packages which have not yet been moved to
10.2. Perhaps this is a good time for fink developers to make a list packages
which should *not* be moved.
1) manconf should not be moved (I believe this is the upshot of previous
discussions)
2) presumably, lilypond
I will concede to this point too that packages should compile the same
on everybody's system, or else it causes a nightmare for the user to
select and for maintainers to maintain all these separate minimal
packages, as I found out when trying to make placeholder packages for
OpenSSL.
The "wi
On Thu, 2002-09-26 at 11:17, Carsten Klapp wrote:
>
> I will concede to this point too that packages should compile the same
> on everybody's system, or else it causes a nightmare for the user to
> select and for maintainers to maintain all these separate minimal
> packages, as I found out whe
> From: "David R. Morrison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Ben Hines has made a nice list of packages which have not yet been
> moved to
> 10.2. Perhaps this is a good time for fink developers to make a list
> packages
> which should *not* be moved.
>
> 1) manconf should not be moved (I believe this i
dave
> I have created modified versions of the swi-prolog and wmmail packages
> which do not depend on libxpm, and they both build fine on 10.1 and
> 10.2;
> I will commit them shortly.
thanks for altering the wmmail package for which i am listed as
maintainer - i was a few days off the list a
At 10:36 Uhr -0400 26.09.2002, David R. Morrison wrote:
>Fink has been listed on a new O'Reilly site, OSDir.com, and we've been
>invited to add a link or button to Fink's homepage allowing users to
>rate Fink at that site.
>
>Any opinions, pro or con, about whether to do this? Or about where to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Here's another silly question:
Why do I need XFree to run MySQL ?
| pejvan% fink install mysql
| sudo /sw/bin/fink install mysql
| Password:
| Information about 1495 packages read in 0 seconds.
|
| pkg mysql version ###
| pkg mysql version 3.2
Hi,
I'm updating the antiword package to include a configuration file
(along with another change):
ConfFiles: %p/share/%n/fontnames
The problem is the 'fontnames' file is not installed anymore with this
new ConfFiles field added to the info file. The 'fontnames' file is
actually archived ins
On Thursday, September 26, 2002, at 06:32 PM, Carsten Klapp wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm updating the antiword package to include a configuration file
> (along with another change):
>
> ConfFiles: %p/share/%n/fontnames
>
> The problem is the 'fontnames' file is not installed anymore with this
> new
Thanks Ben,
Ok, this helps a bit, and I have another question.
It turns out fink wasn't installing the conffile because I had manually
removed it myself, and I guess it was still expecting it to be present.
Once I purged (the manually rm'd file) using "sudo dpkg --purge
antiword" fink is now
15 matches
Mail list logo
