On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 12:51:21PM +0100, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
> Compiling mtoolsfm-1.9-3-2 failed with:
>
> ...
> fr.po:781: message doublement d'efini
> fr.po:779: ...voici l'endroit de la premi`ere d'efinition
> /sw/bin/msgfmt: 1 erreur fatale trouv'ee
[...]
> (message doubly defined). If
Blair Zajac wrote:
Hi Peter,
I'm a Fink committer and am working on getting Ruby up to date so it can
support the new popular Ruby on Rails web development platform.
One of the databases it supports is sqlite. I'm looking at it and have
several questions.
1) Are you still supporting sqlit
Compiling mtoolsfm-1.9-3-2 failed with:
...
fr.po:781: message doublement d'efini
fr.po:779: ...voici l'endroit de la premi`ere d'efinition
/sw/bin/msgfmt: 1 erreur fatale trouv'ee
make[2]: *** [fr.mo] Error 1
make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make: *** [all-recursive-am] Error 2
### execution
On Tuesday, 01 November 2005 at 14:38, Alexander K. Hansen wrote:
> > also from a pratical point of view when uploading info files
> > should I be iterating the revision number even though the package
> > has not necessarily made it out of the tracker yet. It would seem
> > a lot more convenient f
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 23:41:46 +0100
Martin Costabel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the sylpheed COPYING file I see the following:
>
> Specific permission is granted for the GPLed code in this distribition to
> be linked to OpenSSL without invoking GPL clause 2(b).
>
> So it seems they are aw
Rogue wrote:
[]
'interesting' discussion, I'm not big on license so it's great to see a
practical question brought so much in its trail.
I think I will just Restrict the license and forget about the nitty gritty
details for now, I have enough work on the claws branch to leave the religious
sid
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 22:41:49 +0100
Martin Costabel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OTOH, openldap has a non-GPL but GPL-compatible, non-viral license,
> which has no reason to be considered restrictive when combined with
> openssl. But then this whole pissing contest between rival opensource
> fac
Rogue wrote:
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 14:38:17 -0500
"Alexander K. Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi - I just read the restrictions regarding GPL ruled packages dependent on OpenSSL.
They should be Restrictive _unless_ they link against the built-in
OpenSSL that comes with the OS. An exceptio
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 14:38:17 -0500
"Alexander K. Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi - I just read the restrictions regarding GPL ruled packages dependent on
> > OpenSSL.
> They should be Restrictive _unless_ they link against the built-in
> OpenSSL that comes with the OS. An exception is
On 10/31/05, RM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi - I just read the restrictions regarding GPL ruled packages dependent on
> OpenSSL. Am I correct to assume that all packages with ssl support should
> therefore be defined as 'Restrictive'. It seems quite clear from the doc but
> I ask as there are
Martin Costabel wrote:
Blair Zajac wrote:
[]
at the top of the file. So for them to install, I really do need to
have the %p/bin/ruby binary symlink installed, otherwise /usr/bin/ruby
is used, which is still at 1.6, while the ruby package is at 1.8.3.
Hm...
% /usr/bin/ruby --version
ruby 1.8
Blair Zajac wrote:
[]
at the top of the file. So for them to install, I really do need to have
the %p/bin/ruby binary symlink installed, otherwise /usr/bin/ruby is
used, which is still at 1.6, while the ruby package is at 1.8.3.
Hm...
% /usr/bin/ruby --version
ruby 1.8.2 (2004-12-25) [powerpc
12 matches
Mail list logo
