On Thu, 2019-04-11 at 15:11 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
> On 4/11/19 3:05 PM, Seth Kenlon wrote:
> > I've used alien a few times and have been quite pleased with it.
> > Mostly I've used it for relatively small utils.
> >
> > I would imagine that its efficacy varies when dependency packag
On 4/11/19 3:05 PM, Seth Kenlon wrote:
I've used alien a few times and have been quite pleased with it.
Mostly I've used it for relatively small utils.
I would imagine that its efficacy varies when dependency package names
are very different between the Debian world and the Fedora world, but
I'm
I've used alien a few times and have been quite pleased with it.
Mostly I've used it for relatively small utils.
I would imagine that its efficacy varies when dependency package names
are very different between the Debian world and the Fedora world, but
I'm only guessing.
On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at
On 05/28/2013 01:48 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Please don't take this as a criticism, because it's not. One reason
that people don't like to ask the maintainers for ANYTHING is the
frequency with which requests are met with comments on how busy
everyone is, and the occasional reply from someone s
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 05/24/2013 03:53 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 05/24/2013 03:45 PM, Bill Oliver wrote:
Thanks, but it turns out that the current version is 1.0 alpha 7, and
the differences between 0.9 and 1.0 are pretty big.
So, request an update
I have filed one now at
https://bug
Bill Oliver wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013, Neal Becker wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote:
I don't know how useful alien would really be. Because package naming is not
consistent between debian and Fedora, I'm guessing that it's unlikely to be able
to satisfy requirements most of the time.
That'
On 05/24/2013 03:53 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 05/24/2013 03:45 PM, Bill Oliver wrote:
Thanks, but it turns out that the current version is 1.0 alpha 7, and
the differences between 0.9 and 1.0 are pretty big.
So, request an update
I have filed one now at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_b
On 05/24/2013 03:45 PM, Bill Oliver wrote:
Thanks, but it turns out that the current version is 1.0 alpha 7, and
the differences between 0.9 and 1.0 are pretty big.
So, request an update
Rahul
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
ht
On Fri, 24 May 2013, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Makehuman is packaged for Fedora.
# repoquery makehuman
makehuman-0:0.9.1-0.9.rc1a.fc18.x86_64
Ralf
Thanks, but it turns out that the current version is 1.0 alpha 7, and
the differences between 0.9 and 1.0 are pretty big.
billo
--
users mailing li
On 05/24/2013 06:34 PM, Bill Oliver wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013, Neal Becker wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote:
I don't know how useful alien would really be. Because package naming
is not
consistent between debian and Fedora, I'm guessing that it's unlikely
to be able
to satisfy requirements m
On Fri, 24 May 2013, Neal Becker wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote:
I don't know how useful alien would really be. Because package naming is not
consistent between debian and Fedora, I'm guessing that it's unlikely to be able
to satisfy requirements most of the time.
That's what I keep runnin
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 06:56:31 -0400, John Aldrich wrote:
>
>> I have an app that is available in three formats: Mac, Windows and .DEB.
>> I would like to install it on my Fedora box, but, obviously, Fedora
>> doesn't support .DEB files. So, I thought, why not use Alien to
On Fri, 24 May 2013 06:56:31 -0400, John Aldrich wrote:
> I have an app that is available in three formats: Mac, Windows and .DEB.
> I would like to install it on my Fedora box, but, obviously, Fedora
> doesn't support .DEB files. So, I thought, why not use Alien to install
> it? Except, there
> I actually have another question, is it safe to directly install
> packages with dpkg ?
Dpkg does NOT use rpm db to check files to be ovewriten if they are already
exist in the system, dpkg does not make dependencies check.
> Intuitively, I would say no... but then I wonder why this tool is
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> Fernando Cassia wrote:
>> On the other side, I wonder what has made Fedora decide that "Alien"
>> was not worth including as a standard package with the distro?.
>> After all it doesn´t mean supporting that other devil package format
>> ;-)
Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On the other side, I wonder what has made Fedora decide that "Alien"
> was not worth including as a standard package with the distro?.
> After all it doesn´t mean supporting that other devil package format
> ;-) but actually making life _easier_ for Fedora users that
> some
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich wrote:
>
> I can't swear it will be there for a sufficiently long time.
I can upload the files to sourceforge, then...
FC
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedor
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 5:07 AM, Dmitrij S, kryzhevich wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I have alien built for F14 (64bit) here:
> http://krege.fedorapeople.org/alien/
I have created an easy-to-remember redirector. I hope you don´t mind. :)
http://ho.io/alien4fedora
FC
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedora
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 5:07 AM, Dmitrij S, kryzhevich wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I have alien built for F14 (64bit) here:
> http://krege.fedorapeople.org/alien/
Thanks Dmitrij!!
I really appreciate it.
On the other side, I wonder what has made Fedora decide that "Alien"
was not worth including as a stan
Hi!
I have alien built for F14 (64bit) here:
http://krege.fedorapeople.org/alien/
It _could_ be used on 32bit system, but will create /usr/lib64 dir (my mistake
while package building) wich is not required at all.
Dmitrij.
> Has anyone managed to install "Alien" (the .deb to .rpm package
> co
20 matches
Mail list logo
