Jack Howarth wrote:
Martin,
So what is the recommended method for resolving conflicts over
manpages if update-alternatives is the wrong approach?
Personally, I would rename one of them. I would rather not to find a man
page than be shown one with the right name that is not the one I am
(switching the list to fink-devel)
On 17 Apr 2010, at 00:06, Jack Howarth wrote:
Try the updated binutils packaging that I posted on fink tracking...
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailaid=2988592group_id=17203atid=414256
I'm just running one myself
I still see problems in the
On 17 Apr 2010, at 09:04, Martin Costabel wrote:
Jack Howarth wrote:
Martin,
So what is the recommended method for resolving conflicts over
manpages if update-alternatives is the wrong approach?
Personally, I would rename one of them. I would rather not to find a
man
page than be
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 03:16:14AM +0200, Jean-François Mertens wrote:
(switching the list to fink-devel)
On 17 Apr 2010, at 00:06, Jack Howarth wrote:
Try the updated binutils packaging that I posted on fink tracking...
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 03:16:14AM +0200, Jean-François Mertens wrote:
(switching the list to fink-devel)
...
After further small fixes, what I get in detail (on 10.5 / intel)
for the tests (summary was is my last commit msg, to try getting it
earlier to you...) is :
1) on 32 bit fink
Pepe and Karl-Michael,
The current situation with binutils on x86_64
isn't very logical. We should attempt to synchronize
the binutils and x86-64-binutils packages on the
latest release (2.20.1) and then remove x86_64
from the Architecture field in x86-64-binutils.info.
It doesn't make much
