> > Can anyone advise the distro and version being used for current > > mc development?
> I don't see any logic here. I believe you are making too many assumptions > without admitting it. Let me see which assumptions you are making. > 1) Are you assuming that all the developers of mc use the same platform? No > 2) Are you assuming that mc works significantly worse on the platforms > that the developers don't use for development? No > 3) Are you assuming that mc is not tested on any platform that is not used > for its development? No > 4) Are you assuming that the mc developers are using the platform on which > mc works best? No > 5) Are you assuming that you won't be able to participate in the > development if you have a platform different from the one used by the > developers? No > 6) Are you assuming that your bug reports won't be taken seriously if you > have a platform different from the one used by the developers? No I was assuming that a single distro & version is used as a reference for checking package integrity, and to resolve any platform-specific bugs. This has been standard practice in every software project with which I've ever been involved. > I hope that you will answer "no" at least to the questions 3 and 6. > Otherwise I would say that your opinion of the mc developers is very low. I had not formed ANY opinion of mc developers - until now, that is. > I cannot answer for others, but I'm one of the developers, and I use Red > Hat Linux 8.0 for the development. This is probably the only major > GNU/Linux distribution where mc doesn't work well out-of-box because of > the Red Hat's attempt to use UTF-8 on the console and in terminals under X > Window System. That could explain why I tried RH80 and went straight back to RH71. CDA _______________________________________________ Mc mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc
