On Dec 5, 2005, at 2:07 PM, Daniel Macks wrote:
From http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html
The relations allowed are <<, <=, =, >= and >> for strictly earlier,
earlier or equal, exactly equal, later or equal and strictly later,
respectively.
Also:
"The deprecated
On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 12:29:52PM -0800, Trevor Harmon wrote:
> I'm curious about the Depends operators: <<, <=, =, !=, >>, >=. They
> all make sense except for << and >>. I was always taught that < means
> "strictly less than" and << means "much less than", a subjective
> definition that de
On 12/5/05, Philip Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Any particular reason why Fink's gzip is at v1.2.4 (18 Aug 93) while
> OS X's gzip is at v1.3.5?
>
> Regards,
> Phil.
>
>
It was probably good enough for 10.1 and just hasn't been updated.
--
Alexander K. Hansen
Fink Documenter
[Day
I'm curious about the Depends operators: <<, <=, =, !=, >>, >=. They
all make sense except for << and >>. I was always taught that < means
"strictly less than" and << means "much less than", a subjective
definition that depends on the context. In Fink, however, << is taken
to mean "strictly
Hi all,
Any particular reason why Fink's gzip is at v1.2.4 (18 Aug 93) while
OS X's gzip is at v1.3.5?
Regards,
Phil.
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems? Stop! Download the new A
William Scott wrote:
Hi Folks:
Would using gfortran instead of g77 with Xcode 2.2 help to avoid some
of the observed problems with Xcode 2.2? I've avoided installing
this because of all the warnings.
Bill: I've you've rebuilt the latest version of g77 in unstable after
upgrading to Xco
Hi Folks:
Would using gfortran instead of g77 with Xcode 2.2 help to avoid some
of the observed problems with Xcode 2.2? I've avoided installing
this because of all the warnings.
One of the packages I maintain that relies heavily on g77 is being
upgraded, upstream, to use gfortran. (ccp4
On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 09:12:16PM -0500, Kevin Horton wrote:
>
> I used the following gcc command line:
>
> gcc -g basics.c -o basics `pkg-config --cflags gtk+-2.0` `pkg-config
> --libs gtk+-2.0 gtkdatabox`
>
> And it failed like this:
>
> /usr/bin/ld: warning multiple definitions of symbol
On 12/5/05, William Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'll be happy to do it.
> I'd like to leave Konrad's name on it for now at least, but I will take
> responsibility for looking after the package (sort of like with zsh at the
> moment).
>
> Bill
>
That sounds like like a good plan to me--lea
I'll be happy to do it.
I'd like to leave Konrad's name on it for now at least, but I will take
responsibility for looking after the package (sort of like with zsh at the
moment).
Bill
> William (et. al.):
>
> If Konrad is "moving away from Fink as much as possible" then I'd say
> that if you o
I've made and tested one. Shall I add it into fink for you?
Since the current one won't compile, I think we should do this.
Bill
> I will submit 2.4.4 to Fink as soon as I have a working Fink
> installation again. However, I don't have much time to work on that
> at the moment. In fact, Fink p
I'm playing around trying to create a GTK2 app, using the fink
installed software. I'm getting a failure when compiling that leads
me to wonder whether there is possibly a conflict between libiconv-
dev and libgettext3-dev. At the start of this story, libiconv-dev
and libgettext3-dev were
On 12/5/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2005, at 21:38, William Scott wrote:
>
> > I have a working build of mmtk in fink, but when I went to rebuild
> > it, it failed. Also it fails if I try to use python2.4, but it
> > looks like for the same reasons.
> >
> > Here is
Dear Fink Developers
I am trying to update the current openldap-ssl package (that has no
maintainer) to the latest stable version (2.3.11) and at the same time
linking it to system-openssl. I have a preliminary version in my
experimental tree at:
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/fink
14 matches
Mail list logo
