On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 04:09:10PM -0500, Derek Atkins wrote:
> Chris Shoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> I agree with everyone so far that discussion of patches should go to
> >> -devel. Indeed, I've already fixed the Reply-To on -patches to send
> >> there, which should solve the immed
Chris Shoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I agree with everyone so far that discussion of patches should go to
>> -devel. Indeed, I've already fixed the Reply-To on -patches to send
>> there, which should solve the immediate problem.
>
> Agreed, but it doesn't look like your proposal address
On Friday 09 December 2005 5:20 am, Volker Englisch wrote:
> I build g-wrap 1.9.6 on my 64-bit system but I was wondering if I need
> to do anything special for the 'make install' step. I'm afraid the
> library might get installed in /usr/lib instead of /usr/lib64 or is this
> all handled by the c
On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 11:40:00AM -0500, Derek Atkins wrote:
> Chris Shoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > [This proposal has been brewing for several weeks, but has been
> > expedited by Christian's recent complaint. I think this will better
> > address both my concerns and Christian's.]
Chris Shoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [This proposal has been brewing for several weeks, but has been
> expedited by Christian's recent complaint. I think this will better
> address both my concerns and Christian's.]
[snip]
Here's my take on it:
1) People want a list where they can see
On Fri, 2005-12-09 at 11:40 -0500, Derek Atkins wrote:
> So I think my counter proposal:
>
> create gnucash-commits
> - duplicate the subscription database from -patches to -commits
> - move the svn log messages w/o diffs from -patches to -commits
>
> suggest people to send "code-to-test"
Volker Englisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 12/07/2005 12:14 PM Derek Atkins wrote:
>> No. Neil is providing the Debian package name, not the library name.
>> The "problem" you will find is that you get g-wrap 1.3.4 but you probably
>> also have gcc-4.0.. This is a "bad" combination in that
