Max Horn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In addition to the 10.3 binary being broken (thanks to Alexander K.
> Hansen for verifying this), it seems that the 0.10.9-11 binary has
> some missing dependencies. All of those are fixed in the current
> stable version. So if possible it would be nice
In addition to the 10.3 binary being broken (thanks to Alexander K.
Hansen for verifying this), it seems that the 0.10.9-11 binary has
some missing dependencies. All of those are fixed in the current
stable version. So if possible it would be nice if that could be used
for the bindist inste
David R. Morrison wrote:
On Jul 24, 2005, at 6:34 PM, Max Horn wrote:
Hi there,
I got some reports which indicate that the ethereal binary in the
10.3 bindist is broken (the .deb is missing the ethereal binary
itself). I haven't confirmed this yet, but despite this, I wonder:
What exactly
On Jul 24, 2005, at 6:34 PM, Max Horn wrote:Hi there,I got some reports which indicate that the ethereal binary in the 10.3 bindist is broken (the .deb is missing the ethereal binary itself). I haven't confirmed this yet, but despite this, I wonder: What exactly would be the process these days to g
Hi there,
I got some reports which indicate that the ethereal binary in the
10.3 bindist is broken (the .deb is missing the ethereal binary
itself). I haven't confirmed this yet, but despite this, I wonder:
What exactly would be the process these days to get a broken .deb in
the bindist r
