On Friday 16 February 2001 00:15, Martin Albert wrote:
> Hello to all friendly people reading this ...
>
> I'm pkging new upstream of a quite basic lib (libgii).
And that was looong ago. Sorry, that i didn't say thanks to
Matt Zimmerman, Ingo Saitz, Brian Russo, Hamish Moffatt
earlier for your kin
On Friday 16 February 2001 00:15, Martin Albert wrote:
> Hello to all friendly people reading this ...
>
> I'm pkging new upstream of a quite basic lib (libgii).
And that was looong ago. Sorry, that i didn't say thanks to
Matt Zimmerman, Ingo Saitz, Brian Russo, Hamish Moffatt
earlier for your ki
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 02:49:57PM +0100, Ingo Saitz wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 12:15:12AM +0100, Martin Albert wrote:
> > -- Would that be 'legal' anyway? Modifiying installed files of one pkg
> > by the scripts of another? (They're closely related however and chances
> > are good that aft
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 02:49:57PM +0100, Ingo Saitz wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 12:15:12AM +0100, Martin Albert wrote:
> > -- Would that be 'legal' anyway? Modifiying installed files of one pkg
> > by the scripts of another? (They're closely related however and chances
> > are good that af
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 02:49:57PM +0100, Ingo Saitz wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 12:15:12AM +0100, Martin Albert wrote:
> > -- Would that be 'legal' anyway? Modifiying installed files of one pkg
> > by the scripts of another? (They're closely related however and chances
> > are good that aft
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 12:15:12AM +0100, Martin Albert wrote:
> -- Would that be 'legal' anyway? Modifiying installed files of one pkg
> by the scripts of another? (They're closely related however and chances
> are good that after all this weird stuff, the next pkg to be removed
> would be the
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 02:49:57PM +0100, Ingo Saitz wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 12:15:12AM +0100, Martin Albert wrote:
> > -- Would that be 'legal' anyway? Modifiying installed files of one pkg
> > by the scripts of another? (They're closely related however and chances
> > are good that af
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 12:15:12AM +0100, Martin Albert wrote:
> -- Would that be 'legal' anyway? Modifiying installed files of one pkg
> by the scripts of another? (They're closely related however and chances
> are good that after all this weird stuff, the next pkg to be removed
> would be the
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 12:15:12AM +0100, Martin Albert wrote:
> Upgrading of that pkg is no problem. The old-lib vanishes, the new not
> including the utils installs. Same for the -dev, the old one being
> replaced with the new which includes the utils.
>
> But downgrading naturally blows. The
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 12:15:12AM +0100, Martin Albert wrote:
> Upgrading of that pkg is no problem. The old-lib vanishes, the new not
> including the utils installs. Same for the -dev, the old one being
> replaced with the new which includes the utils.
>
> But downgrading naturally blows. Th
Hello to all friendly people reading this ...
I'm pkging new upstream of a quite basic lib (libgii).
Two small (<10k) demos, where at least one is practically usable, this
is, would be nice to have it installed as binary, are to be installed
with the binary pkg.
The previous debian release has
Hello to all friendly people reading this ...
I'm pkging new upstream of a quite basic lib (libgii).
Two small (<10k) demos, where at least one is practically usable, this
is, would be nice to have it installed as binary, are to be installed
with the binary pkg.
The previous debian release ha
12 matches
Mail list logo
