The geda-gaf source package currently builds quite happily against Guile
1.8.
Is it possible to have geda-gaf with Guile 1.8 on ia64, and geda-gaf with
Guile 2.0 on other architectures?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troubl
This bug has been fixed in upstream stable release geda-gaf-1.8.0.
Please update the Debian package accordingly.
http://ftp.geda-project.org/geda-gaf/stable/v1.8/1.8.0/
Regards
Peter
--
Peter Brett
Remote Sensing Research Group
Surrey Space Centre
signature.asc
Des
This bug has been fixed in upstream stable release geda-gaf-1.8.0.
Please update the Debian package accordingly.
http://ftp.geda-project.org/geda-gaf/stable/v1.8/1.8.0/
Regards
Peter
--
Peter Brett
Remote Sensing Research Group
Surrey Space Centre
signature.asc
Des
This bug has been fixed in upstream stable release geda-gaf-1.8.0.
Please update the Debian package accordingly.
http://ftp.geda-project.org/geda-gaf/stable/v1.8/1.8.0/
Regards
Peter
--
Peter Brett
Remote Sensing Research Group
Surrey Space Centre
signature.asc
Des
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:19:23 +, Peter TB Brett
wrote:
> Surely, to be of most use in an educational scenario, having packages
> organised into *appropriate* menu categories is a *huge* benefit? How
can
> you possibly justify your apparent attitude that shoving apps willy-nilly
&
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:51:17 +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen
wrote:
>> We SHOULD NOT add bogus categories to .desktop files.
>
> Yes. And we should make sure no package show up in the Lost+found
> toplevel menu section, even when extra-xdg-menus is not installed. (I
> suspect we have different defi
On Tuesday 13 January 2009 11:03:27 Richard Hartmann wrote:
> Is libgeda under GPL v2 or LGPL v2? The copyright file in Debian claims
> LGPL while the geda website claims GPL.
gEDA is currently distributed under the GPL v2.
Peter
signature.asc
Descri
7 matches
Mail list logo
