On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 09:36 PM, Chris Leishman wrote:
On Saturday, December 7, 2002, at 03:55 AM, Ben Hines wrote:
According to Jim Magee (i believe) on the apple list, in his
experience -j2 (I think he actually suggested -j3) helps even on
single processor systems.
I'd be inte
Hi Chris,
For those packages on the list you made, do they use multiple jobs
within their own Makefiles too, or was this just added in the fink
builds?
I agree that make shouldn't be using multiple jobs by default, it
should be up to the end-user how many jobs they want. So I'm in
agreement w
On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 06:16 PM, Chris Leishman wrote:
On Saturday, December 7, 2002, at 03:56 AM, Ben Hines wrote:
Don't. Leave it as 10.2. There are NO binaries for 10.2 yet which is
why it is 404. Currently they are pointing at 10.1 binaries, many of
which will not even work.
On Saturday, December 7, 2002, at 03:55 AM, Ben Hines wrote:
According to Jim Magee (i believe) on the apple list, in his
experience -j2 (I think he actually suggested -j3) helps even on
single processor systems.
I'd be interested in seeing the reasoning there - because it's
certainly not w
On Saturday, December 7, 2002, at 03:56 AM, Ben Hines wrote:
Don't. Leave it as 10.2. There are NO binaries for 10.2 yet which is
why it is 404. Currently they are pointing at 10.1 binaries, many of
which will not even work.
It will be there in the future.
Ok - though when is "future"? I'm
hmm funny when I asked for a dual Ti ppl look at me funny :)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Every power mac sold (for the past 6 months) is dual processor. Its an
>all-dual lineup.
-=[JFH] Justin F. Hallett
-=[JFH] Rendek Communications Inc.
-=[JFH] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 05:07 PM, Chris Leishman wrote:
On Saturday, December 7, 2002, at 02:52 AM, Carsten Klapp wrote:
The new fink and apt both build without any errors, and everything
seems okay! Mac OS X 10.2.2
Carsten
p.s. Sorry for starting a new thread, I already deleted the
On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 04:51 PM, Chris Leishman wrote:
AFAIK, there is absolutely no point in using -j2 except on systems
that have more than one processor, which is not that many in the MacOS
X world. Almost all make tasks should be cpu or disk io intensive, so
having more tasks r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
On Freitag, Dezember 6, 2002, at 10:21 Uhr, Ben Hines wrote:
On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 06:58 AM, David R. Morrison wrote:
The actual 0.5.0 distribution is going to be a slight modification of
the
one which is already there, includin
On Saturday, December 7, 2002, at 02:52 AM, Carsten Klapp wrote:
The new fink and apt both build without any errors, and everything
seems okay! Mac OS X 10.2.2
Carsten
p.s. Sorry for starting a new thread, I already deleted the previous
messages :/
I just did an update, and a new /sw/etc/apt/
The new fink and apt both build without any errors, and everything
seems okay! Mac OS X 10.2.2
Carsten
p.s. Sorry for starting a new thread, I already deleted the previous
messages :/
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to
Hi all,
I've noticed that a number of packages include -j2 or -j4 when running
make.
AFAIK, there is absolutely no point in using -j2 except on systems that
have more than one processor, which is not that many in the MacOS X
world. Almost all make tasks should be cpu or disk io intensive, so
On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 03:47 PM, Andrew Prock wrote:
One of the files I submitted for the filmgimp-0.10-1 package is
actually incorrectI submitted the right file, but now am unable to
delete the wrong one. Could someone tell me what to do?
Just attach the new one to the track
One of the files I submitted for the filmgimp-0.10-1 package is
actually incorrectI submitted the right file, but now am unable to
delete the wrong one. Could someone tell me what to do?
Here's the package URL:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/
?group_id=17203&atid=414256&func=detail&aid
I wrote :
> Definitely a checksum problem...
Yeah ! You fixed it really quickly, thanks !
I'm now compiling fink + apt-pkg, it's OK.
Good time to try and do an update-all I'm waiting after for a couple of
weeks...
--
Xavier
http://www.freetibet.org
http://www.tibet.fr/
-
On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 12:33 PM, Alexander Hansen wrote:
I was able to download fink-0.11.1-1, but the checksum showed up as
wrong. I went ahead and did the install anyway, and it appeared to
build .
I'll fix the MD5 once the server starts working again. (ssh auth
problems today)
David R. Morrison wrote :
> Hi all. I've just released fink-0.11.1-1 (to both 10.1 and 10.2) and
> apt-0.5.4-7 (to 10.2 only).
>
> I need testing reports on these ASAP so that I can move them to stable,
> so that I can release the bindist.
Hold on, I'm just doeing a selfudpadte-cvs
[...cvs...]
I forgot to add that apt-0.5.4-7 seemed to build fine.
On Fri, 2002-12-06 at 14:51, David R. Morrison wrote:
> Hi all. I've just released fink-0.11.1-1 (to both 10.1 and 10.2) and
> apt-0.5.4-7 (to 10.2 only).
>
> I need testing reports on these ASAP so that I can move them to stable,
> so that
I was able to download fink-0.11.1-1, but the checksum showed up as
wrong. I went ahead and did the install anyway, and it appeared to
build .
One question about the apt-0.5.4-7 build: the configuration reports
that my dual-processor machine has one cpu:
...
checking number of cpus... 1
...
On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 06:58 AM, David R. Morrison wrote:
The actual 0.5.0 distribution is going to be a slight modification of
the
one which is already there, including fink-0.11.1-1 and apt-0.5.4-7.
The
question is, should I just call it 0.5.0 even though it's changed, or
should I
The checksum was incorrect.
On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, David R. Morrison wrote:
> Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 14:51:44 -0500
> From: David R. Morrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Fink-devel] testing needed
>
> Hi all. I've just released fink-0.11.1-1 (to both 10.1 and 10.2) and
>
it'll take awhile for the sf mirrors to pick it up...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>I wasn't able to download the fink-0.11.1-1 source.
-=[JFH] Justin F. Hallett
-=[JFH] Rendek Communications Inc.
-=[JFH] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
This sf.net em
I wasn't able to download the fink-0.11.1-1 source.
On Fri, 2002-12-06 at 14:51, David R. Morrison wrote:
> Hi all. I've just released fink-0.11.1-1 (to both 10.1 and 10.2) and
> apt-0.5.4-7 (to 10.2 only).
>
> I need testing reports on these ASAP so that I can move them to stable,
> so that I c
I made a branch for fink-0.11.1 development, and I'll merge it back to
the main tree. However, I've run out of time today: have to go back
to my cold house with no power and no phone before the dusk-to-dawn
curfew kicks in (we had an ice storm here, for those who didn't hear).
Just wanted to menti
Hi all. I've just released fink-0.11.1-1 (to both 10.1 and 10.2) and
apt-0.5.4-7 (to 10.2 only).
I need testing reports on these ASAP so that I can move them to stable,
so that I can release the bindist.
Thanks,
Dave
---
This sf.net email
Dear fink-devel folks,
As some of you are aware, sourcefiles for the 0.5.0 distribution were put
up at sourceforge around 10 days ago, and were publically accessible for
a day or less. (They are still accessible, but there is no longer a URL
which points to them.)
The actual 0.5.0 distribution i
Jeremy Higgs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just to follow up on this, I've got a question for the other
> developers. If, say, gnomemm has BuildDepends on gnome-libs-dev and
> gnome-libs, should it also depend on gnome-libs? Would this be the same
> for gtkmm, since gnomemm has a BuildDepend on
27 matches
Mail list logo
