On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 09:51:15AM +0100, A Mennucc1 wrote:
> for some reason, it seems that auto-builders are not catching up
> on my packages for woody-proposed-updates
Assuming that you uploaded sparc binaries, it looks like everything worked
fine.
--
- mdz
Hi,
I am trying to package something which has a package for a library and a
package for a binary that depends on that library. I have spent *so* much
time trying and googling and searching archives in the past two weeks,
trying to get libtool to not set the rpath on the binary, but to no avail.
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 09:51:15AM +0100, A Mennucc1 wrote:
> for some reason, it seems that auto-builders are not catching up
> on my packages for woody-proposed-updates
Assuming that you uploaded sparc binaries, it looks like everything worked
fine.
--
- mdz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
sean finney wrote:
> currently, there's a file /etc/sugarplum/apache.conf that has the
> rewrite rules, including the location of /sugarplum. if i were to do
> one of the above suggestions, what's the best way to handle this file?
> would it still be as a conffile, even though every time the packa
Hi,
I am trying to package something which has a package for a library and a
package for a binary that depends on that library. I have spent *so* much
time trying and googling and searching archives in the past two weeks,
trying to get libtool to not set the rpath on the binary, but to no avail.
sean finney wrote:
> currently, there's a file /etc/sugarplum/apache.conf that has the
> rewrite rules, including the location of /sugarplum. if i were to do
> one of the above suggestions, what's the best way to handle this file?
> would it still be as a conffile, even though every time the packa
On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 07:14:16PM -0700, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Bug 179614! It appears to me that this is a similar but not quite
> identical problem. In that bug the packages were all real packages
> and none of them were virtual. I could not deduce that any of them
> were virtual. So I will fi
On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 07:14:16PM -0700, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Bug 179614! It appears to me that this is a similar but not quite
> identical problem. In that bug the packages were all real packages
> and none of them were virtual. I could not deduce that any of them
> were virtual. So I will fi
Dear Sir/Madam,
My name is Theo-dora Sogiba, and I am an Events Coordinator for the National
Film and Video Foundation of South Africa (NFVF). We are a statutory body
from the government department of Arts and Culture. We are tasked by our
government with developing and marketing the film and vide
Dear Sir/Madam,
My name is Theo-dora Sogiba, and I am an Events Coordinator for the National
Film and Video Foundation of South Africa (NFVF). We are a statutory body
from the government department of Arts and Culture. We are tasked by our
government with developing and marketing the film and vide
hi
for some reason, it seems that auto-builders are not catching up
on my packages for woody-proposed-updates
here are the autobuilders logs:
snmpkit
* 0.9-4.woody.2 (s390) (latest build at Sep 18 17:01: maybe-successful)
* 0.9-4.woody.2 (hppa) (latest build at Sep 18 17:04: maybe-su
hi
for some reason, it seems that auto-builders are not catching up
on my packages for woody-proposed-updates
here are the autobuilders logs:
snmpkit
* 0.9-4.woody.2 (s390) (latest build at Sep 18 17:01: maybe-successful)
* 0.9-4.woody.2 (hppa) (latest build at Sep 18 17:04: maybe-su
12 matches
Mail list logo
