On Feb 18, 2006, at 8:12 PM, David R. Morrison wrote:
This is untested, and indeed one of the reasons we're not ready to
"release" this tree is that we don't have a definitive answer about
the correct upgrade strategy.
Your plan should work, but you'll find that many packages are
rebuilt
On Feb 18, 2006, at 1:04 PM, Koen van der Drift wrote:
On Feb 18, 2006, at 2:25 PM, David R. Morrison wrote:
The 10.4 tree is based on the state of the 10.4-transitional tree
on January 20, the day the chill began. Some of the more recent
changes were transferred over, but not in any s
Hi Koen,
On Feb 18, 2006, at 3:04 PM, Koen van der Drift wrote:
On Feb 18, 2006, at 2:25 PM, David R. Morrison wrote:
The 10.4 tree is based on the state of the 10.4-transitional tree
on January 20, the day the chill began. Some of the more recent
changes were transferred over, but not
On Feb 18, 2006, at 2:25 PM, David R. Morrison wrote:
The 10.4 tree is based on the state of the 10.4-transitional tree
on January 20, the day the chill began. Some of the more recent
changes were transferred over, but not in any systematic way. So,
if you made changes to 10.4-transiti
On Jan 20, 2006, at 9:44 AM, David R. Morrison wrote:
I am imposing a "chill" on CVS, for the 10.4-transitional tree
(both stable and unstable). During the "chill", I ask that people
only make urgent commits, and that they try to avoid changing
packages which have a GCC tag. (Of course, b
Martin Costabel wrote:
Thomas Lauf wrote:
[]
Well, does that mean I am stuck on QT 7.0.3 now? Or can I upgrade -
maybe later to 7.0.5?
I have no idea. You have to hope that Apple hasn't yet started to
neglect OSX 10.3
[]
We should probably file bug reports with Apple about these problems, bu
