On Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 11:19:52AM +0100, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> Did you try building the packages yourself ? You said me that it don't work
> for you.
>
> So did you fill a bugt report against enlightenment ? If yes how long ago was
> it.
>
> If you didn't do that, you cannot hope that the package
On Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 12:58:28PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2000, Robert Ramiega wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 09:19:22AM +, Sergio Brandano wrote:
> > > I think we should get back to what ``frozen'' means at this point.
> > Please try to think about frozen not in
On Fri, 28 Jan 2000, Robert Ramiega wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 09:19:22AM +, Sergio Brandano wrote:
> > I think we should get back to what ``frozen'' means at this point.
> Please try to think about frozen not in relation of binary tree but in
> relation of source tree. I did not check t
On Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 09:19:22AM +, Sergio Brandano wrote:
>
> I think we should get back to what ``frozen'' means at this point.
Please try to think about frozen not in relation of binary tree but in
relation of source tree. I did not check this but i'm sure that if you look
in the source
> Did you try building the packages yourself ? You said me that it
> don't work for you.
I compiled it and installed it long ago (directly on the ppc
machine). The problem is that it does not start up as it should.
I am busy until the 15th with issues that have far higher priority,
and I am u
On Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 09:19:22AM +, Sergio Brandano wrote:
>
> Adam,
>
> I wrote:
> >> ... by the way, yes it is *unstable*, I know it. But this must not
> >> necessarily imply that it *must* crash, right?
>
> >> Shall we conclude that ``frozen'' is, de facto, a synonym for
> >> ``unst
Adam,
I wrote:
>> ... by the way, yes it is *unstable*, I know it. But this must not
>> necessarily imply that it *must* crash, right?
>> Shall we conclude that ``frozen'' is, de facto, a synonym for
>> ``unstable''? Or shall frozen better contain the 0.16.3-6 packages?
you replied:
> It sh
Sergio Brandano wrote:
> >> ... by the way, yes it is *unstable*, I know it. But this must not
> >> necessarily imply that it *must* crash, right? One can also upload
> >> the new packages and leave the freedom to the others to do some
> >> beta-testing or keep the old one, right?
>
> > Right,
>> ... by the way, yes it is *unstable*, I know it. But this must not
>> necessarily imply that it *must* crash, right? One can also upload
>> the new packages and leave the freedom to the others to do some
>> beta-testing or keep the old one, right?
> Right, but when people develop on i386 o
Sergio Brandano wrote:
> Dear Adam,
>
> I think the real problem is another one. That I want to run this
> enlightenment and GNOME thing, while I should rather use my good
> old fvwm, so to also gain in performance.
I suppose so. E runs very nicely on my 160 MHz 603e, the pager uses about 0.
Dear Adam,
I think the real problem is another one. That I want to run this
enlightenment and GNOME thing, while I should rather use my good
old fvwm, so to also gain in performance. Even better Motif, if
there is one for ppc. At least we had a few certainties before,
while now all things k
... by the way, yes it is *unstable*, I know it. But this must not
necessarily imply that it *must* crash, right? One can also upload
the new packages and leave the freedom to the others to do some
beta-testing or keep the old one, right?
Sergio
Sergio Brandano wrote:
> >sure, that is the problem. Because of the i386 package all binary all -6
> >packages got erased, making enlightenment uninstallable on powerpc.
>
> Great. This enforces my original messages:
>
> > As this happened before for other packages, I would say that, in
> > princ
On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 11:51:13AM +, Sergio Brandano wrote:
>
> >sure, that is the problem. Because of the i386 package all binary all -6
> >packages got erased, making enlightenment uninstallable on powerpc.
>
> Great. This enforces my original messages:
>
> > As this happened before for
>sure, that is the problem. Because of the i386 package all binary all -6
>packages got erased, making enlightenment uninstallable on powerpc.
Great. This enforces my original messages:
> As this happened before for other packages, I would say that, in
> principle, it is not a good thing to del
On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 11:39:15AM +, Sergio Brandano wrote:
>
> > So it was built by the build daemon since your last mail.
>
> Nope. The i386 version was available several days ago.
sure, that is the problem. Because of the i386 package all binary all -6
packages got erased, making enligh
> So it was built by the build daemon since your last mail.
Nope. The i386 version was available several days ago.
> How so ?
It compiles, but there are problems when using it. On the other hand,
if you had no problems, why not making it available as a bin package?
Sergio
On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 11:16:56AM +, Sergio Brandano wrote:
>
> >What happens here is that the themes and data are architecture all,
> >so are the one built for i386, who has enlightenment 0.16.3-6.
>
> ... enlightenment 0.16.3-7 (I am running it, and no compilation was
> required).
So it
>What happens here is that the themes and data are architecture all,
>so are the one built for i386, who has enlightenment 0.16.3-6.
... enlightenment 0.16.3-7 (I am running it, and no compilation was
required).
> Just get the source package and recompile it. (apt-get source should
> do the wo
On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 08:42:32AM +, Sergio Brandano wrote:
>
> Hey Laurence!
>
> Could you *please* fix the dependencies with this package?
>
> > enlightenment depends on enlightenment-data (= 0.16.3-6)
> >
> > enlightenment depends on enlightenment-data (= 0.16.3-6)
> > enlightenment su
Hey Laurence!
Could you *please* fix the dependencies with this package?
> enlightenment depends on enlightenment-data (= 0.16.3-6)
>
> enlightenment depends on enlightenment-data (= 0.16.3-6)
> enlightenment suggests epplets
out of the actual distribution:
>enlightenment-data_0.16.3-7.deb
21 matches
Mail list logo
