On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 22:03:16 -0700, Russ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I downloaded the iso's (md9.1) but each one said it stalled instead of
finished (I used Konquerer). However, the size of each file was
correct and it seemed to burn ok (I can read each disk in Konquerer).
Is it safe?
Compare
Thanks Richard, all the md5sums were identicle.
Russ
RichardA wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 22:03:16 -0700, Russ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I downloaded the iso's (md9.1) but each one said it stalled instead of
finished (I used Konquerer). However, the size of each file was
correct and it seemed
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 22:57:06 -0400
Ronald J. Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] uttered:
Yes - I saw that. I'm just amazed at the difference! Do you think he
really added all that much? (I know he does have a great reputation
for this).
Miark has it. He's built it against a lot of really recent KDE
Hi All,
Thanks for the help so far. I finally got KDE working again (picky
little bugger). Anyway, I am either going to upgrade to MD9.1 or do a
complete reinstall before I try installing BibleTime again.
I downloaded the iso's (md9.1) but each one said it stalled instead of
finished (I used
Hi All,
I attempted to install BibleTime from an rpm designed for mdk9.1 because
they had none for 9.0 (which I am running). I recieved several failed
dependancies. I was able to get an answer from them and was told I would
probably need to compile it from a source code.
I have never done
On Sunday 14 September 2003 03:04 pm, Russ wrote:
Hi All,
I attempted to install BibleTime from an rpm designed for
mdk9.1 because they had none for 9.0 (which I am running). I
recieved several failed dependancies. I was able to get an
answer from them and was told I would probably need to
On Sunday 14 Sep 2003 6:41 pm, Kaj Haulrich wrote:
On Sunday 14 September 2003 03:04 pm, Russ wrote:
Hi All,
I attempted to install BibleTime from an rpm designed for
mdk9.1 because they had none for 9.0 (which I am running). I
recieved several failed dependancies. I was able to get an
Although I do not know exactly what an src.rpm file is, I do know that
that was in the KDE2.0 list and not the KDE3. However, the directions
given to install this from the source do not seem to be all that
difficult so I am going to give it a go sometime this evening.
I'll let you know how it
One glitch here, how can I tell if this is installed? It may not be
since I may have figure this had something to do with writing software
when I installed MD and I may have chosen not to. I'm not sure though
since it was so long ago that I did it.
Thanks
Russ
Kaj Haulrich wrote:
Now, first
On Sunday 14 September 2003 03:49 pm, Richard Urwin wrote:
On Sunday 14 Sep 2003 6:41 pm, Kaj Haulrich wrote:
On Sunday 14 September 2003 03:04 pm, Russ wrote:
Hi All,
I attempted to install BibleTime from an rpm designed for
mdk9.1 because they had none for 9.0 (which I am
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 08:04:29 -0700
Russ [EMAIL PROTECTED] uttered:
I attempted to install BibleTime from an rpm designed for mdk9.1
because they had none for 9.0 (which I am running). I recieved several
failed dependancies. I was able to get an answer from them and was
told I would probably
On Sunday September 14 2003 10:04 am, Russ wrote:
Hi All,
I attempted to install BibleTime from an rpm designed for mdk9.1
because they had none for 9.0 (which I am running). I recieved
several failed dependancies. I was able to get an answer from
them and was told I would probably need to
On Sunday 14 September 2003 04:07 pm, Russ wrote:
One glitch here, how can I tell if this is installed? It may
not be since I may have figure this had something to do with
writing software when I installed MD and I may have chosen not
to. I'm not sure though since it was so long ago that I did
On Sunday 14 Sep 2003 4:04 pm, Russ wrote:
Hi All,
I attempted to install BibleTime from an rpm designed for mdk9.1 because
they had none for 9.0 (which I am running). I recieved several failed
dependancies. I was able to get an answer from them and was told I would
probably need to compile
On Sunday 14 September 2003 12:14 pm, HaywireMac wrote:
I did a urpmi --test bibletime just to see what the dependencies were,
and it's ridiculous, to say the least:
Wow - I'm not using Texstar and it wasn't nearly that bad. It went like this:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] darklord]# urpmi bibletime
One
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 22:09:49 -0400
Ronald J. Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] uttered:
Wow - I'm not using Texstar and it wasn't nearly that bad. It went
like this:
which I pointed out...it was probably because of the way Texstar built
it. :-\
[EMAIL PROTECTED] darklord]# urpmi bibletime
One of the
On Sunday 14 September 2003 10:25 pm, HaywireMac wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 22:09:49 -0400
Ronald J. Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] uttered:
Wow - I'm not using Texstar and it wasn't nearly that bad. It went
like this:
which I pointed out...it was probably because of the way Texstar built
it.
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 22:57:06 -0400, Ronald J. Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes - I saw that. I'm just amazed at the difference! Do you think he really
added all that much? (I know he does have a great reputation for this).
* He's packaged version 1.3, not 1.2.
* If you use Texstar's packages
18 matches
Mail list logo
