I'll use a modification of this; since freeglut isn't drop-in
compatible with glut (and because we're trying to ditch glut, anyway),
let's just have it depend on freeglut.
LiKai Liu wrote:
> Here is an update to lablgl.info. If you can put it in, that will save the
> time going through the packag
Here is an update to lablgl.info. If you can put it in, that will save the
time going through the package submission tracker.
The most notable change is that I simplified package provide, replaces,
and conflicts.
liulk
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Alexander K. Hansen wrote:
> oops, it needed lablgtk2,
For lablgl, I think it's fine to say "glut | freeglut" for the dependency,
but I also notice a problem with O'Caml binaries. If you fink update ocaml
from 3.09 to 3.10, for example, then all O'Caml packages (lablgl included)
will break because of binary incompatibility. For example, they could
disa
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 08:42:15PM -0400, Alexander K. Hansen wrote:
> Alexander Hansen wrote:
> > On 9/30/07, Chris Dolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sep 28, 2007, at 2:04 PM, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> I think, that I read, somewhere, that 2.27 is protocol-compati
Alexander Hansen wrote:
> On 9/30/07, Chris Dolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 28, 2007, at 2:04 PM, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I think, that I read, somewhere, that 2.27 is protocol-compatible with
>>> 2.13… (though I may be wrong)
>>>
>> The changelog is here:
>>
On 9/30/07, Chris Dolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 28, 2007, at 2:04 PM, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
>
> > I think, that I read, somewhere, that 2.27 is protocol-compatible with
> > 2.13… (though I may be wrong)
>
> The changelog is here:
>http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/unison//downl
On Sep 28, 2007, at 2:04 PM, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
> I think, that I read, somewhere, that 2.27 is protocol-compatible with
> 2.13… (though I may be wrong)
The changelog is here:
http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/unison//download/releases/beta/
unison-2.27.29-manual.html#news
and does no
Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
> I think, that I read, somewhere, that 2.27 is protocol-compatible with
> 2.13… (though I may be wrong)
>
> On 9/28/07, Alexander Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> It is indeed still the case. The existing unison package builds
>> executables for 2.9.1, 2.10.2, an
I think, that I read, somewhere, that 2.27 is protocol-compatible with
2.13… (though I may be wrong)
On 9/28/07, Alexander Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It is indeed still the case. The existing unison package builds
> executables for 2.9.1, 2.10.2, and 2.13.16; I believe at the time most
On 9/28/07, Vincent Beffara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Is it possible to move current (2.13.16) version to stable branch of
> > > fink and update unstable to have 2.27.XX?
> >
> > It appears that the only missing dependency is lablgtk (unmaintained),
> > so if there aren't any objections, I c
> > Is it possible to move current (2.13.16) version to stable branch of
> > fink and update unstable to have 2.27.XX?
>
> It appears that the only missing dependency is lablgtk (unmaintained),
> so if there aren't any objections, I can go ahead and move our
> existing unison package to stable.
U
On 9/21/07, Alexey Zakhlestin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I noticed, that unison-project now has a beta-version with some
> noticable updates.
>
> http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/unison//download/releases/beta/
>
> Is it possible to move current (2.13.16) version to stable branch of
> fink and
I noticed, that unison-project now has a beta-version with some
noticable updates.
http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/unison//download/releases/beta/
Is it possible to move current (2.13.16) version to stable branch of
fink and update unstable to have 2.27.XX?
(cc'ed maintainer)
--
Alexey Zak
13 matches
Mail list logo
