Bart Silverstrim wrote:
On Oct 24, 2004, at 3:29 PM, Mark Adams wrote:
Matt wrote:
What's the worst that can happen? It fails to compile, and you still
need
to find a packaged version. You'll be no worse off than you are now.
The worst that can happen? I descend once again into dependency hell
Bart Silverstrim wrote:
On Oct 24, 2004, at 3:29 PM, Mark Adams wrote:
Matt wrote:
What's the worst that can happen? It fails to compile, and you still
need
to find a packaged version. You'll be no worse off than you are now.
The worst that can happen? I descend once again into dependency hell
Daniel J McDonald wrote:
On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 08:00 -0400, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
Well designed programs have a "make uninstall" option. So, you would go
back to the orignial source, run make uninstall, then make install on
the new source.
except 'make uninstall' seems to be deprecated on perl
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
> When you only install programs from source, how do you know when upgrading
> them that there aren't remnants of binaries or libraries scattered around the
> OS? I grew up having to use Windows, so please forgive the question; I had
> one too many ins
On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 08:00 -0400, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
> On Oct 24, 2004, at 3:29 PM, Mark Adams wrote:
> When you only install programs from source, how do you know when
> upgrading them that there aren't remnants of binaries or libraries
> scattered around the OS?
Well designed programs
On Oct 24, 2004, at 3:29 PM, Mark Adams wrote:
Matt wrote:
What's the worst that can happen? It fails to compile, and you still
need
to find a packaged version. You'll be no worse off than you are now.
The worst that can happen? I descend once again into dependency hell
and spend hours loosing
Matt wrote:
What's the worst that can happen? It fails to compile, and you still need
to find a packaged version. You'll be no worse off than you are now.
The worst that can happen? I descend once again into dependency hell
and spend hours loosing my mind over this. I totally alienate my sens
Dennis Peterson wrote:
> >> Use the source Luke.
> >
> >
> > I've got a bad feeling about this.
> >
>
> If you have a reasonably well configured system (for dev work - gcc,
> etc) it will compile and install quickly. Read the dox - clamav.conf is
> gone, replace by clamd.conf. Freshclam has a
Mark Adams wrote:
Niek wrote:
On 10/24/2004 6:13 PM +0200, Mark Adams wrote:
Okay, it appears the Mandrake Linux update system hasn't caught up
with developers yet. Urpmi offers only ver. 061. I upgraded from
0.61, when notified a few days ago that it was outdated, to the
packages in "clamav-
Niek wrote:
On 10/24/2004 6:13 PM +0200, Mark Adams wrote:
Okay, it appears the Mandrake Linux update system hasn't caught up
with developers yet. Urpmi offers only ver. 061. I upgraded from
0.61, when notified a few days ago that it was outdated, to the
packages in "clamav-0.80-1mdk.1bcr.i58
On 10/24/2004 6:13 PM +0200, Mark Adams wrote:
Okay, it appears the Mandrake Linux update system hasn't caught up with
developers yet. Urpmi offers only ver. 061. I upgraded from 0.61, when
notified a few days ago that it was outdated, to the packages in
"clamav-0.80-1mdk.1bcr.i586.rpm" from
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 10:13:41 -0600
Mark Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, it appears the Mandrake Linux update system hasn't caught up
> with
> developers yet. Urpmi offers only ver. 061. I upgraded from 0.61,
> when
> notified a few days ago that it was outdated, to the packages in
>
12 matches
Mail list logo
