Re: [unicon] Re: [Unicon-group] Debian distribution: no more problem

2005-01-07 Thread Barry . Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 11:58:35AM -0700, Steve Wampler wrote: > > Interesting. The FHS (Filesystem Hierarchy Standard) reserves > > /opt for "add-on application software packages", which means > > Debian isn't quite following the FHS. In fact, the FHS states (in > >

Re: [Unicon-group] Debian distribution: no more problem

2005-01-07 Thread Steve Wampler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess it all comes down to how "add-on" is distinguished from "standard"1. With Debian, this distinction is rather non-existant. A package is either installed or not, and this decision is done on a per-machine basis, not per-distribution. ... I can see that Debian has a

Re: [Unicon-group] Debian distribution: no more problem

2005-01-07 Thread peter.kourzanov
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 11:58:35AM -0700, Steve Wampler wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 10:45:34AM -0700, Steve Wampler wrote: > > > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > >>>Well, it depends. What I've found out is that in the end these should > >>>point to either IPL (/usr

Re: [Unicon-group] Debian distribution: no more problem

2005-01-07 Thread peter.kourzanov
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 06:24:13PM +0100, Jonathan Kaye wrote: > Hi Peter, > Yeah, that did it. Does this mean I leave IPATH and LPATH permanently > unset? or only when I want to compile ivib type stuff? Well, it depends. What I've found out is that in the end these should point to either IPL (

Re: [Unicon-group] Debian distribution: no more problem

2005-01-07 Thread peter.kourzanov
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 10:45:34AM -0700, Steve Wampler wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > Well, it depends. What I've found out is that in the end these should > >point to either IPL (/usr/lib/ipl) and/or Unicon (/usr/lib/uni, > >/usr/lib/uni/gui) or something comparable. The Unicon direct

Re: [Unicon-group] Debian distribution: no more problem

2005-01-07 Thread Steve Wampler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, it depends. What I've found out is that in the end these should point to either IPL (/usr/lib/ipl) and/or Unicon (/usr/lib/uni, /usr/lib/uni/gui) or something comparable. The Unicon directories should contain uniclass.* files (otherwise unicon won't find packages an

Re: [Unicon-group] Debian distribution: problem

2005-01-07 Thread peter.kourzanov
Folks, I have just uploaded a new version of Unicon .deb's. This will hopefully work for people using unicon. deb http://www.xs4all.nl/~kurzanov/Debian unstable contrib deb-src http://www.xs4all.nl/~kurzanov/Debian unstable contrib I checked it using the demo.icn from gui/guidemos.

Re: [Unicon-group] Debian distribution: problem

2005-01-07 Thread Pjotr Kourzanov
Jonathan Kaye wrote: Hi Peter and everyone, I downloaded and installed your latest deb package. GOOD NEWS: the dbm_open problem has disappeared and I can now do unicon -c gui and it creates the two uniclass files. BAD NEWS: I still get the [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/opt/Unicon/ipl/MYPROGS$ icont zzz Tra

Re: [Unicon-group] Debian distribution: problem

2005-01-07 Thread Jonathan Kaye
Hi Peter and everyone, I downloaded and installed your latest deb package. GOOD NEWS: the dbm_open problem has disappeared and I can now do unicon -c gui and it creates the two uniclass files. BAD NEWS: I still get the [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/opt/Unicon/ipl/MYPROGS$ icont zzz Translating: zzz.icn: Fi