Am 18.03.2010 um 01:23 schrieb Daniel Johnson:
>
> On Mar 17, 2010, at 6:29 PM, Max Horn wrote:
>
>>
>> Am 17.03.2010 um 16:23 schrieb Daniel Johnson:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Following up to myself, I've now marked db42/db42-ssl as 10.4, 10.5 only.
>>> As the maintainer of spamprobe has been ina
On Mar 17, 2010, at 6:29 PM, Max Horn wrote:
>
> Am 17.03.2010 um 16:23 schrieb Daniel Johnson:
>
> [...]
>
>> Following up to myself, I've now marked db42/db42-ssl as 10.4, 10.5 only. As
>> the maintainer of spamprobe has been inactive for more than 5 years, I
>> switched it to db48 (it bui
Am 17.03.2010 um 16:23 schrieb Daniel Johnson:
[...]
> Following up to myself, I've now marked db42/db42-ssl as 10.4, 10.5 only. As
> the maintainer of spamprobe has been inactive for more than 5 years, I
> switched it to db48 (it builds fine) and notified him. db4 is now also gone.
> That le
On Mar 17, 2010, at 10:39 AM, Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> On Mar 17, 2010, at 9:24 AM, Daniel E. Macks wrote:
>
>> Daniel Macks said:
>>> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:29:24AM +0100, Max Horn wrote:
Am 15.03.2010 um 23:58 schrieb Daniel Johnson:
>
> As a follow up, I checked to see wh
On Mar 17, 2010, at 9:24 AM, Daniel E. Macks wrote:
> Daniel Macks said:
>> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:29:24AM +0100, Max Horn wrote:
>>> Am 15.03.2010 um 23:58 schrieb Daniel Johnson:
As a follow up, I checked to see what db* is being used.
>> [...]
>>> As for the rest: It sure would
Daniel Macks said:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:29:24AM +0100, Max Horn wrote:
>> Am 15.03.2010 um 23:58 schrieb Daniel Johnson:
>> >
>> > As a follow up, I checked to see what db* is being used.
> [...]
>> As for the rest: It sure would be nice if more of those could be converted
>> to newer ve
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:29:24AM +0100, Max Horn wrote:
> Am 15.03.2010 um 23:58 schrieb Daniel Johnson:
> >
> > As a follow up, I checked to see what db* is being used.
[...]
> As for the rest: It sure would be nice if more of those could be converted to
> newer versions.
>
>
> > db3:
> >
