wrote:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, Kevin Puetz wrote:
> Debian/PowerPC packages of KDE2 are now built and are apt-able from
> http://southpole.penguinpowered.com - just add the line
>
> deb http://southpole.penguinpowered.com/debian woody kde2
>
> to your /etc/apt/sources.list. Currently this is an 8/27 snapshot (just
Anyone who has downloaded this, please apt-get update; apt-get upgrade - I'd
installed the beta2 of qt2 instead of 2.2.0 by accident.
Also, you may have to uninstall licq to get task-kde to install - I'll be
uploading licq packages there soon built against 2.2.0 to fix this (licq
currently requires qt2.1 which conflicts with qt2.2). What's the correct
version numbering convention for what is essentially a NMU of licq? It's only
going onto my own site, but I'd like it to behave nicely for people running
unstable :-).
0.8.5-5.1? (current in unstable is 0.8.5-5)
If I just build it as 0.8.5-5 will apt notice that it has two 0.8.5-5's but
that only one is installable? The only difference is that, since my build was
made on a libqt2.2 system this one will depend on qt2.2, whereas the other
one in woody depends one libqt2.1 - I suppose I could experiment, but thought
someone might know the right way to number...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Since my system is in a mess =), I skipped the apt-get
bit and installed every archive using DPKG. When installing
kdelibs3_2.0 it said that it needed libssl09. I searched on
Altavista and the Debian ftp, but so far I have just found
the Intel binary, where's the powerpc binary?
--
Kind regards Björn Johansson
http://bounce.to/amigafreak
