On 2009-06-24, Neil Roeth wrote:
> Thanks. So, another alternative would be for xemacs to remove its dependence
> on gtk 1.2, correct? I'll explore that angle as well.
Yes. that's anotehr alternative
/Sune
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "u
On Jun 24, Sune Vuorela (nos...@vuorela.dk) wrote:
> On 2009-06-24, Neil Roeth wrote:
> > I received the below email that my package, aplus-fsf, was removed from
> > testing. Apparently that is due to the removal of gtk 1.2, but aplus-fsf
> > has
> > no direct dependency on gtk 1.2. I'm a l
On 2009-06-24, Neil Roeth wrote:
> I received the below email that my package, aplus-fsf, was removed from
> testing. Apparently that is due to the removal of gtk 1.2, but aplus-fsf has
> no direct dependency on gtk 1.2. I'm a little surprised at the removal - no
> bugs were filed, no lintian err
I received the below email that my package, aplus-fsf, was removed from
testing. Apparently that is due to the removal of gtk 1.2, but aplus-fsf has
no direct dependency on gtk 1.2. I'm a little surprised at the removal - no
bugs were filed, no lintian error that the package depended on an obsolet
4 matches
Mail list logo
