I've been contacting the maintainers of some software (ccp4) that I
have packaged for fink, and I got this rather disturbing reply this
morning. It sounds like gfortran on intel is problematic. Has
anyone else had experiences, good or bad, with gfortran on intel? I
was actually about to b
> > Conflicts: <<
> > system-tetex, tetex, tetex-nox, ptex, ptex-nox,
> > (%type_raw[-nox] = -nox) tetex-base (>= 0),
> > (%type_raw[-nox] = .) tetex-nox-base,
> > ptex-base (>= 0), ptex-nox-base
> > <<
> > Replaces: <<
> > tetex, tetex-nox, ptex, ptex-nox,
> > (%type_raw[-nox] = -nox) tetex-
At Tue, 07 Mar 2006 09:45:56 +0900,
AIDA Shinra wrote:
>
> Workaround:
>
> Conflicts: <<
> system-tetex, tetex, tetex-nox, ptex, ptex-nox,
> (%type_raw[-nox] = -nox) tetex-base (>= 0),
> (%type_raw[-nox] = .) tetex-nox-base,
> ptex-base (>= 0), ptex-nox-base
> <<
> Replaces: <<
> tetex, tete
>
> --- tetex.info.orig 2005-04-27 12:26:41.0 +0900
> +++ tetex.info2006-03-07 03:21:57.0 +0900
> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
> Package: tetex%type_pkg[-nox]
> Type: -nox (boolean)
> Version: 3.0
> -Revision: 1
> +Revision: 2
> GCC: 3.3
> Description: Complete distribution of th
Hello,
I updated ptex.info in unstable. It's been a hard days night :-<
Thank you for packaging tetex, I made ptex.info based on tetex.info.
ptex now provides tetex, so could you add ptex* to tetex.info's
Conflicts/Replaces? I send a patch to tetex.info.
Main points of this patch are:
1. Delete
On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 09:50:30AM -0800, David R. Morrison wrote:
> Dan,
>
> This is the second bugfix in branch_0_24 that I've noticed recently.
> Do we need any more? I'd like to move a recent 0.24.x to stable
> pretty soon, but I guess we should have a bugfix release first. Is
> this
Dan,
This is the second bugfix in branch_0_24 that I've noticed recently.
Do we need any more? I'd like to move a recent 0.24.x to stable
pretty soon, but I guess we should have a bugfix release first. Is
this a good time, or are there more bugs to squash?
-- Dave
On Mar 6, 2006, at
