Am 01.01.2004 um 06:17 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."
But *THE SIN* is with all of us! Right, Justin? :-)
[Yeah yeah I admit that was a bad pun, but I couldn't resist. What do
you expect of a man at 6 AM when he's finally getting to bed, hm? Good
[Err, folks, please tell Ben and me when we are getting too much on
your nerves, then we can continue our debate off-list :-)]
Am 01.01.2004 um 04:24 schrieb Ben Hines:
[resend]
On Dec 31, 2003, at 6:11 PM, Max Horn wrote:
Err, sorry, but I don't understand why you react so extremely
aggre
"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."
Combined with your comments on a tracker item today (to a
simple user who didn't follow the rules - yeah, users do that, no need
to yell at them)
William G. Scott
---
This SF.net email i
[resend]
On Dec 31, 2003, at 6:11 PM, Max Horn wrote:
Err, sorry, but I don't understand why you react so extremely
aggressive. I just re-read what I wrote, and I still don't get why
what I wrote makes me a dick (again, apparently). I was merely asking,
and IMO not even impolite (although
[Disclaimer: I am not implying that Martin or anybody else is stupid,
incompetent, not thorough, or whatever. Rather, I try to participate in
a technical discussion. For this, it is usually necessary to ask
questions and show problems. Those problems may indeed have solutions,
even trivial ones
Am 31.12.2003 um 22:21 schrieb Ben Hines:
On Dec 31, 2003, at 12:32 PM, Max Horn wrote:
Am 31.12.2003 um 21:00 schrieb Martin Costabel:
Ben Hines wrote:
On Dec 22, 2003, at 4:50 AM, Martin Costabel wrote:
[]
I am dreaming of a mechanism that would remove a BuilDependsOnly
package immediately af
On Dec 31, 2003, at 1:21 PM, Ben Hines wrote:
I have been thinking about this some more, and I would now like to
propose this seriously as a solution for several problems that were
biting us recently. The more I think about it, the more it seems to
me that we will *have to* do this.
Here is t
On Dec 31, 2003, at 12:32 PM, Max Horn wrote:
Am 31.12.2003 um 21:00 schrieb Martin Costabel:
Ben Hines wrote:
On Dec 22, 2003, at 4:50 AM, Martin Costabel wrote:
[]
I am dreaming of a mechanism that would remove a BuilDependsOnly
package immediately after it is used. This would not only solve
Am 31.12.2003 um 21:00 schrieb Martin Costabel:
Ben Hines wrote:
On Dec 22, 2003, at 4:50 AM, Martin Costabel wrote:
[]
I am dreaming of a mechanism that would remove a BuilDependsOnly
package immediately after it is used. This would not only solve this
problem, but also come in handy in other s
Sorry, Remi! My script assumed that the here-doc construction wasn't being
used in the BuildDepends field... well, that was true the last time I
used the script, but I guess it's not true any more!
-- Dave
---
This SF.net email is sponsored
Am 31.12.2003 um 02:45 schrieb Mark E. Perkins:
Max Horn wrote:
Thanks, but it has already been updated to an even newer version in
CVS.
Do you plan to update the 10.2-gcc3.3 tree as well? I see that 0.10.0
is now in 10.3/unstable, but all I can find under 10.2-gcc-3.3 is the
previous 0.9.16.
Dear Martin,
I have an alternate proposal for handling this kind of BuildDepends issue:
a new field in fink that I'm tentatively calling InheritedBuildDepends.
Here's how it would work. If package foo has the line
InheritedBuildDepends: bar
then any time another package had a BuildDepends on f
Ben Hines wrote:
On Dec 22, 2003, at 4:50 AM, Martin Costabel wrote:
[]
I am dreaming of a mechanism that would remove a BuilDependsOnly
package immediately after it is used. This would not only solve this
problem, but also come in handy in other situations (it would help
with the freetype2 mess
As some of you may have noticed, I just added "BuildDepends: x11-dev" to
many packages in the 10.2-gcc3.3 and 10.3 trees. I also added a package
xfree86-4.3.99.16-3 to 10.3/unstable.
Why do this? We've had many problems over the past few months with users
who didn't install the X11SDK package fr
14 matches
Mail list logo
