-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/12/10 12:38 PM, David Lowe wrote:
> On 12 Jun, 2010, at 8:41 AM, Daniel Macks wrote:
>
>>> But sendfile has a much better successor: F*EX
>>> http://fex.rus.uni-stuttgart.de/
>>>
>>> Maybe you are interested.
>>
>> Love to have it! All we need is
On 12 Jun, 2010, at 8:41 AM, Daniel Macks wrote:
>> But sendfile has a much better successor: F*EX
>> http://fex.rus.uni-stuttgart.de/
>>
>> Maybe you are interested.
>
> Love to have it! All we need is someone to submit a package .info
> file. The existing package, as you saw on the webpage, ha
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 12:54:17PM +0200, Ulli Horlacher wrote:
>
> I am the author of sendfile.
>
> I see access to the sendfile homepage through
> http://pdb.finkproject.org/pdb/package.php/sendfile (Referer)
>
> On your webpage you write about "sendfile 2.1a", but the stable release is
> sen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/12/10 7:10 AM, Koen van der Drift wrote:
>
> On Jun 11, 2010, at 9:13 AM, Alexander Hansen wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 6/11/10 8:28 AM, Koen van der Drift wrote:
>>> Lat night I noticed that my package d
I am the author of sendfile.
I see access to the sendfile homepage through
http://pdb.finkproject.org/pdb/package.php/sendfile (Referer)
On your webpage you write about "sendfile 2.1a", but the stable release is
sendfile-2.1b - for more than 10 years.
The sendfile homepage has moved from
http:
Koen van der Drift wrote:
[]
> and from dpkg -l
>
> ri xml-parser-pm588 2.36-2Perl ext interface to
> XML parser/expat
"ri" says that it is installed, but marked for removal. I don't quite
know what this means, probably that a removal had been attempted, but
was unsucces
On Jun 11, 2010, at 9:13 AM, Alexander Hansen wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 6/11/10 8:28 AM, Koen van der Drift wrote:
>> Lat night I noticed that my package data-serializer-pm does not
>> install properly, nothing gets installed in /sw/lib/, only stuff in
>> /sw
On Jun 12, 2010, at 6:40 AM, Martin Costabel wrote:
> You will probably get the same complaint from apt-get whenever you
> ask it to do *anything*. It just refuses to work as long as it feels
> something is unclean in its database. dpkg is much less inhibited,
> you can use it to --remove -
Koen van der Drift wrote:
> I'm trying to force remove a package, but get this output:
>
> $ sudo apt-get remove xml-parser-pm588
> Reading Package Lists... Done
> Building Dependency Tree... Done
> You might want to run `apt-get -f install' to correct these:
> Sorry, but the following packages ha
I'm trying to force remove a package, but get this output:
$ sudo apt-get remove xml-parser-pm588
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
You might want to run `apt-get -f install' to correct these:
Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies:
intltool40: De
10 matches
Mail list logo
