Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> On 1/12/2007 12:04 PM, Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
>> Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
>>>
I'd like to know one thing though - was there any specific reason for
the mingw upgrade after 2.4.0, or was it just a routine
latest-is-gr
On 1/12/2007 12:04 PM, Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
> Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to know one thing though - was there any specific reason for
>>> the mingw upgrade after 2.4.0, or was it just a routine
>>> latest-is-greatest upgrade?
>>
>> There
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
> Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to know one thing though - was there any specific reason for
>>> the mingw upgrade after 2.4.0, or was it just a routine
>>> latest-is-greatest upgrade?
>>
>> There a
Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
>
>> I'd like to know one thing though - was there any specific reason for
>> the mingw upgrade after 2.4.0, or was it just a routine
>> latest-is-greatest upgrade?
>
> There are specific requirements: from the CHANGES file
>
>
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
> I'd like to know one thing though - was there any specific reason for
> the mingw upgrade after 2.4.0, or was it just a routine
> latest-is-greatest upgrade?
There are specific requirements: from the CHANGES file
2.4.0:
mingw-runtime >= 3.10 is requir
Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> On 1/11/2007 6:52 AM, Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
>> Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>>> On 1/10/2007 2:29 PM, Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
Does anybody (most probably the core team) know if there is
any difference in how the official 2.4.0 and 2.4.1 binaries are
built?
Prob
Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> On 1/11/2007 6:52 AM, Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
>> Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>>> On 1/10/2007 2:29 PM, Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
Does anybody (most probably the core team) know if there is
any difference in how the official 2.4.0 and 2.4.1 binaries are
built?
Prob
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
> Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>> On 1/10/2007 2:29 PM, Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
>>> Does anybody (most probably the core team) know if there is
>>> any difference in how the official 2.4.0 and 2.4.1 binaries are
>>> built?
>>>
>>> Problem is, 2.4.0 loads with the w
On 1/11/2007 6:52 AM, Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
> Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>> On 1/10/2007 2:29 PM, Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
>>> Does anybody (most probably the core team) know if there is
>>> any difference in how the official 2.4.0 and 2.4.1 binaries are
>>> built?
>>>
>>> Problem is, 2.4.0 loads with the wi
Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> On 1/10/2007 2:29 PM, Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
>> Does anybody (most probably the core team) know if there is
>> any difference in how the official 2.4.0 and 2.4.1 binaries are
>> built?
>>
>> Problem is, 2.4.0 loads with the wine (I tried a few recent
>> versions, and also used
On 1/10/2007 2:29 PM, Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
> Does anybody (most probably the core team) know if there is
> any difference in how the official 2.4.0 and 2.4.1 binaries are
> built?
>
> Problem is, 2.4.0 loads with the wine (I tried a few recent
> versions, and also used 2.3.x under wine from time t
Does anybody (most probably the core team) know if there is
any difference in how the official 2.4.0 and 2.4.1 binaries are
built?
Problem is, 2.4.0 loads with the wine (I tried a few recent
versions, and also used 2.3.x under wine from time to time),
but 2.4.1 won't.
Thanks.
Hin-Tak Leung
12 matches
Mail list logo