Re: boot-flopppies 2.2.18 and 2.2r2 and kernel 2.2.17

2000-11-13 Thread Adam Di Carlo
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 04:22:21PM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote: > > > > However, I am going to assume this is a transient state of affairs and > > that we will have 2.2.17 in 2.2r2. It's possible we'll get it > > together and have 2.2.18-pre but I need to

Re: gtk/glib on sparc is broken

2000-11-13 Thread Ben Collins
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 04:48:34PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > > Is it a known problem that I can't install libgtk1.2-dev and > libglib1.2-dev on sparc potato? The -dev package depends on version > 1.2.7-2 of libgtk1.2, but only version 1.2.8-1 is available, > which makes it completely imposs

2.2 rev 2 imminent?

2000-11-13 Thread J.A. Bezemer
On 13 Nov 2000, Philip Hands wrote: [...] > I think we're going to skip actually publishing these [=r1 CDs, JAB], > because Wichert doesn't want to produce r1 CDs only to replace them with r2 > CDs within a week, because it will piss the CD vendors off. > > So, I'll not be showing the CDs I prod

gtk/glib on sparc is broken

2000-11-13 Thread Wichert Akkerman
Is it a known problem that I can't install libgtk1.2-dev and libglib1.2-dev on sparc potato? The -dev package depends on version 1.2.7-2 of libgtk1.2, but only version 1.2.8-1 is available, which makes it completely impossible to compile any gnome app including the ssh security fix I'm trying to b

Re: boot-flopppies 2.2.18 and 2.2r2 and kernel 2.2.17

2000-11-13 Thread Herbert Xu
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 11:26:01AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > epoch. If you switch to a 2.2.18 prepatch, it may be better to call it > "kernel-image-2.2.17, version 2.2.18preX" so we don't just have the same > problem again. It's better to include the pre in the package name, i.e., kernel-foo

Re: boot-flopppies 2.2.18 and 2.2r2 and kernel 2.2.17

2000-11-13 Thread Herbert Xu
On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 04:22:21PM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote: > > However, I am going to assume this is a transient state of affairs and > that we will have 2.2.17 in 2.2r2. It's possible we'll get it > together and have 2.2.18-pre but I need to work with something now for > the purposes of buil