On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 12:54:30AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 07:46 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > The problem was seen with -1 (the binary depending on libstdc++6 and
> > libfltk1.1c102). IMO it's still wrong to upload a package without
> > tightened version dependencies
On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 07:46 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> The problem was seen with -1 (the binary depending on libstdc++6 and
> libfltk1.1c102). IMO it's still wrong to upload a package without
> tightened version dependencies, before all depending C++ libraries are
> in the archive for all arch
Jeff Licquia writes:
> I can confirm that the only binary htmldoc packages I have built (i386)
> were built on an unstable system updated that day. The current version,
> 1.8.24-2, appears to be fine on all architectures besides arm and
> powerpc, which appear to be out of date. The problems with
I can confirm that the only binary htmldoc packages I have built (i386)
were built on an unstable system updated that day. The current version,
1.8.24-2, appears to be fine on all architectures besides arm and
powerpc, which appear to be out of date. The problems with arm seem to
be caused by a l
4 matches
Mail list logo
