Net Llama! wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Collins Richey wrote:
See
http://www.winehq.org/news/?view=155
Too bad this is a private server: "Forbidden You don't have permission
.."
it was working fine yesterday. i read the article, and it was mostly
Marcus Meissner debating how to fix wine horkage
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Collins Richey wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:57:03 -0500
> Klaus-Peter Schrage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Net Llama! wrote:
> >
> > >>Now, Red Hat 8.0 already has 2.3.2 (-4.80) via up2date, which is a
> > >big>nuisance to the wine people (and me as a wine addict): wine
Collins Richey wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:57:03 -0500
Klaus-Peter Schrage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Net Llama! wrote:
Now, Red Hat 8.0 already has 2.3.2 (-4.80) via up2date, which is a
big>nuisance to the wine people (and me as a wine addict): wine
simply won't>run under glib 2.3.x, and it s
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:57:03 -0500
Klaus-Peter Schrage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Net Llama! wrote:
>
> >>Now, Red Hat 8.0 already has 2.3.2 (-4.80) via up2date, which is a
> >big>nuisance to the wine people (and me as a wine addict): wine
> >simply won't>run under glib 2.3.x, and it seems to b
Net Llama! wrote:
Now, Red Hat 8.0 already has 2.3.2 (-4.80) via up2date, which is a big
nuisance to the wine people (and me as a wine addict): wine simply won't
run under glib 2.3.x, and it seems to be quite a hassle to make it run
under the new glibc.
do you know why it won't run? i use wine
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Klaus-Peter Schrage wrote:
> Tim Wunder wrote:
>
> >
> > FWIW, Red Hat Linux 9 will have 2.3.1
>
> Now, Red Hat 8.0 already has 2.3.2 (-4.80) via up2date, which is a big
> nuisance to the wine people (and me as a wine addict): wine simply won't
> run under glib 2.3.x, and it se
Tim Wunder wrote:
FWIW, Red Hat Linux 9 will have 2.3.1
Now, Red Hat 8.0 already has 2.3.2 (-4.80) via up2date, which is a big
nuisance to the wine people (and me as a wine addict): wine simply won't
run under glib 2.3.x, and it seems to be quite a hassle to make it run
under the new glibc.
Kla
I second THAT !!! Downgraded to SuSe 8.0 after the system went
totally down
the toilet on SuSe 8.1 Same for Redhack 8.0 ..
dep wrote:
begin Net Llama!'s quote:
| ahhh...ok, thanks. so, has anyone upgraded a box from a 2.2.x
| version to a 2.3.x version and lived to tell the tale?
begin Net Llama!'s quote:
| ahhh...ok, thanks. so, has anyone upgraded a box from a 2.2.x
| version to a 2.3.x version and lived to tell the tale? is the
| procedure for building 2.3.x the same as the one for 2.2.x?
didn't suse 8.1 go to 2.3.0 or 2.3.1? whatever they went to, it broke
every
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Bill Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 05:20:29PM -0500, Net Llama! wrote:
> ...
> >> AFAIK, they don't follow the same stable/unstable convention that the
> >> kernel follows, so 2.3.1 is s'posed to be the latest stable release.
> >
> >ahhh...ok, thanks. so, has anyon
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 05:20:29PM -0500, Net Llama! wrote:
...
>> AFAIK, they don't follow the same stable/unstable convention that the
>> kernel follows, so 2.3.1 is s'posed to be the latest stable release.
>
>ahhh...ok, thanks. so, has anyone upgraded a box from a 2.2.x version to
>a 2.3.x vers
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Tim Wunder wrote:
> On 3/24/2003 4:48 PM, someone claiming to be Net Llama! wrote:
> > I'm trying to figure out what the latest stable release of glibc is. I
> > see a 2.2.5 and i see a 2.3.1. According to the (g)libc website:
> > http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/
> >
> > 2.3
On 3/24/2003 4:48 PM, someone claiming to be Net Llama! wrote:
I'm trying to figure out what the latest stable release of glibc is. I
see a 2.2.5 and i see a 2.3.1. According to the (g)libc website:
http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/
2.3.1 is the latest release, but they neglect to comment on whet
I'm trying to figure out what the latest stable release of glibc is. I
see a 2.2.5 and i see a 2.3.1. According to the (g)libc website:
http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/
2.3.1 is the latest release, but they neglect to comment on whether its
considered to be a devel or stable release. anyone kn
14 matches
Mail list logo