Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 09:40:31PM +, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> > Ah, but the maintainer is in the US, and possibly a US citizen!
> > ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>
> Actually, are you sure that's true? I talked to him a few months ago
> and I believe he said that he did not
On Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 09:40:31PM +, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> Kevin Puetz wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > > Nothing fancy at all, just some fixes to configure.in et al because
> > > ndbm.h is in /usr/include/db1 on Debian. The patch is very
> > > debian-specific (or glibc2-specific
Tom Rini wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Dec 1999, Kevin Puetz wrote:
>
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > > Right, I've got arla & krb4 stuff going, but it needed a va_args patch
> > > when I complied :)
> >
> > Odd - I never patched anything, in fact I just rebuilt it to be sure. What
> > part of the packa
On Wed, 15 Dec 1999, Kevin Puetz wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > Right, I've got arla & krb4 stuff going, but it needed a va_args patch
> > when I complied :)
>
> Odd - I never patched anything, in fact I just rebuilt it to be sure. What
> part of the package was the va_args problem in?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Right, I've got arla & krb4 stuff going, but it needed a va_args patch
> when I complied :)
Odd - I never patched anything, in fact I just rebuilt it to be sure. What
part of the package was the va_args problem in?
On Wed, 15 Dec 1999, Kevin Puetz wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > And runs? (tarball + gcc 2.95.2 won't work, if they have a CVS it
> > might be fine now..)
>
> That's the setup I used (tarball of 0.10.1+gcc2.95.2, debian/potato). Heavy
> use, as mail here as kerberized and I also use a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> And runs? (tarball + gcc 2.95.2 won't work, if they have a CVS it
> might be fine now..)
That's the setup I used (tarball of 0.10.1+gcc2.95.2, debian/potato). Heavy
use, as mail here as kerberized and I also use arla for AFS mounted shares. I
haven't seen a problem y
> > It would also be nice if these packages could be updated to the latest
> > upstream (0.10.1). I submitted this, but the BTS seems to have eaten it - I
> > can get to it by #52178 but I haven't heard a reply and it's not showing up
> > in
> > the package's page. Oh well, that I certainly can
Kevin Puetz wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > Nothing fancy at all, just some fixes to configure.in et al because
> > ndbm.h is in /usr/include/db1 on Debian. The patch is very
> > debian-specific (or glibc2-specific?), and should probably be made
> > more generic so it looks first in the defa
On Wed, 15 Dec 1999, Kevin Puetz wrote:
> It would also be nice if these packages could be updated to the latest
> upstream (0.10.1). I submitted this, but the BTS seems to have eaten it - I
> can get to it by #52178 but I haven't heard a reply and it's not showing up
> in
> the package's page
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Nothing fancy at all, just some fixes to configure.in et al because
> ndbm.h is in /usr/include/db1 on Debian. The patch is very
> debian-specific (or glibc2-specific?), and should probably be made
> more generic so it looks first in the default include path and then in
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> As far as I understand it.
>
> I patch it about a year ago and got a local install, but I remember
> disliking my patches, so I never submitted them, and now they seem to
> be lost :( I'd appreciate if you could post them.
Nothing fancy at all, just some fixes to confi
As far as I understand it.
I patch it about a year ago and got a local install, but I remember
disliking my patches, so I never submitted them, and now they seem to
be lost :( I'd appreciate if you could post them.
On Mon, Dec 13, 1999 at 12:35:14AM +, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> Greetings,
>
Greetings,
It's legal for Americans to send patches to Kerberos if they don't
involve crypto, right?
(Patch and question to follow if "yes"...)
Zeen,
-Adam P.
14 matches
Mail list logo
