Hello Leonard,
On Sat, 2005-02-12 at 13:44 +0100, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
> That is a very bad development. We want these patches to be used
> downstream for 4.6.1. For post 4.6.1 we hope to implement support for
> multibyte character sets by wrapping relevant functions.
>
> Jindrich, I hav
Hello Marcel,
On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 14:25 +0100, Marcel Pol wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
> | The problem with Fedora using a 4.6.1a tarball is caused by the fact
> | that Jindrich Novy didn't read pchel's message that HEAD is now a pos
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
| On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 14:25, Marcel Pol wrote:
|
|>A small problem that comes from that is that the utf8 patches are
|>developed against head now. There are a few rejects when applying to
|>current 4.6.1. Since I'm no C c
Hello Roland,
On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 18:23, Roland Illig wrote:
> > Would it be possible for someone to look at this? I asked Jindrich Novy
> > directly but didn't get an answer, and the 0.4 release of the src.rpm is
> > still based on head.
>
> I can do it. Just send me the files.
Note that thes
Hello Marcel, Jindrich,
On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 14:25, Marcel Pol wrote:
> A small problem that comes from that is that the utf8 patches are
> developed against head now. There are a few rejects when applying to
> current 4.6.1. Since I'm no C coder I'm not able to upgrade the Mandrake
> package to
Marcel Pol wrote:
A small problem that comes from that is that the utf8 patches are
developed against head now. There are a few rejects when applying to
current 4.6.1. Since I'm no C coder I'm not able to upgrade the Mandrake
package to current 4.6.1, and I'd rather not touch head.
The failed hunks
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
| The problem with Fedora using a 4.6.1a tarball is caused by the fact
| that Jindrich Novy didn't read pchel's message that HEAD is now a post
| 4.6.1 branch and he should have been updating to MC_4_6_1_PRE instead.
A smal
Hi Roland,
On Wed, 2005-02-09 at 21:39, Roland Illig wrote:
> Sorry, I think I got this wrong. There was a weird numbering scheme, but
> as Leonard told me today, it is the mc-4.6.1a (in configure.ac) that is
> confusing.
I was somewhat mistaken. 4.6.1a is a valid tag for HEAD assuming this is
Hello, all!
> On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 05:49, Pavel Shirshov (pchel) wrote:
> > Pavel Roskin doesn't release of mc-4.6.1-pre3 because:
> > -
> > >> mc exists when run remotely over ssh with X forwarding enabled:
> > >>
. . .
Pavel Shirshov (pchel) wrote:
Hello Roland,
Tuesday, February 8, 2005, 2:20:18 AM, you wrote:
RI> the release of a new MC version is long overdue. Also there has been
RI> some confusion concerning our version numbering scheme, as some
RI> distributions consider a version 4.6.1-pre3 to be higher th
On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 05:49, Pavel Shirshov (pchel) wrote:
> Pavel Roskin doesn't release of mc-4.6.1-pre3 because:
> -
> >> mc exists when run remotely over ssh with X forwarding enabled:
> >>
> >> X Error of failed reques
Hello Roland,
Tuesday, February 8, 2005, 2:20:18 AM, you wrote:
RI> the release of a new MC version is long overdue. Also there has been
RI> some confusion concerning our version numbering scheme, as some
RI> distributions consider a version 4.6.1-pre3 to be higher than 4.6.1.
mc numbering
Hi Roland,
On Mon, 2005-02-07 at 22:20, Roland Illig wrote:
> the release of a new MC version is long overdue. Also there has been
> some confusion concerning our version numbering scheme, as some
> distributions consider a version 4.6.1-pre3 to be higher than 4.6.1.
Nope. The point is that at
13 matches
Mail list logo
