> Why do they need to coexist with the other implementation? They could
> simply conflict.
They shouldn't.
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 09:56:52AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Then no, you don't. It was probably a mistake to ever attempt to
> codify the list of virtual packages in policy. Agreement amoung the
> people involved is sufficient.
I disagree. The nature of the agreement needs to be documented
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 07:11:47AM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Agreed! The problem is that (as people have told already) the
> new (the same crew as far as I know) upstream call themself realvnc...
> I think I stick to the upstream name. An other solution is to
> not change the name and make it p
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 06:04:15PM -0600, Oliver Xymoron wrote:
> > 2) Change the vnc package to realvnc
> >realvncserver, provides vncserver
> >realvncviewer, provides vncviewer
> >vnc-common (I have to check what's in there).
>
> Perhaps you should make the virtual package rfbserver
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 02:21:18PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 01:49:33PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > 0) Start using alternatives for vnc.
> >
> > 0.1) Link svncviewer staically with libvncauth instead
> >of dynamically.
> >
> > 1) Package tightvnc as:
> >t
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 01:49:33PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Hello
>
> Some people might have notived that I have made some
> (dramatic?) changes to the vnc packages. The reason is
> that the upstream development have started again. :)
>
> The problem is that I used to have the tightvnc patch
6 matches
Mail list logo
