Cezary Krzyzanowski napisał(a):
>
> Maby just easier? mozilla-firefox-swift ?
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
its nor mozilla neither firefox.
--
+PLUG +PLD http://www.linux.pl | [Quoting Sergiusz Pawłowicz]
RLU 301329 spider(at)linux(dot)pl | "głupota to straszny wirus."
Dnia 20-09-2006, śro o godzinie 12:43 +0200, Tomasz Mateja napisał(a):
> According to license we can name it f.ex. pldswitfox or switfox-PLD and
> make it distributable :)
Yes - if we make it build from their sources, which isn't as easy as it
seems. I've failed to build it from spec, by hand or
Dnia środa, 20 września 2006 12:43, deejay1 napisał:
> Author: deejay1 Date: Wed Sep 20 10:43:54 2006 GMT
> Module: SPECS Tag: HEAD
> Log message:
> - properly reverted changes
BTW how to let libtool using apps link to libpng properly? I have some
glen wrote:
> Author: glen Date: Tue Sep 19 12:55:42 2006 GMT
> Module: SPECS Tag: HEAD
> Log message:
> - update License
>
> Files affected:
> SPECS:
>swiftfox.spec (1.1 -> 1.2)
>
> Diffs:
>
> ==
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 01:37:36AM +0300, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] pld/SPECS $ rpm --define 'alt_kernel desktop' -E
> '%{_kernel_ver}'
> 2.6.17.11_desktop-0.1.1smp
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] pld/SPECS $ rpm --define 'alt_kernel desktop' -E
> '%{_kernel_ver}smp'
> 2.6.17.11_desktop-