> >> Another thing to note... Dpkg won't let you build part of a package or
> >> assign different version numbers to different .deb files created from
> >> the same source. (At least, I've never been able to get it to do so.)
>
> You certainly can do that, check out bash/libreadline for instance
> > Another thing to note... Dpkg won't let you build part of a package or
> > assign different version numbers to different .deb files created from
> > the same source. (At least, I've never been able to get it to do so.)
>
> Will this be nescessary? The libc5 thing is only temporary, and I do
> On Sat, 11 Apr 1998, Brian White wrote:
>> Another thing to note... Dpkg won't let you build part of a package or
>> assign different version numbers to different .deb files created from
>> the same source. (At least, I've never been able to get it to do so.)
You certainly can do that, check
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, another point I am worried about. Included in the tarballs are hooks
> into an automated software update mechanism. I have that disabled, as that
> would not fit well with the debian way of maintaining things. Anyone else
> have ideas on this?
On a
On Sat, 11 Apr 1998, Brian White wrote:
> I just uploaded new versions of the netscape3 and netscape4 installers.
> They fix all the known bugs. Note that these installers work quite
> differently from each other, though that is mostly in the {pre,post}{inst,rm}
> scripts. They do have some iden
> > > I intend to package the new communicator that allow free redistribution.
> > > It
> > > will go into non-free(no source), but at least the users won't have to
> > > download the tarball themselves.
> >
> > That would be great! I posted a couple weeks ago asking for someone to
> > help with
On Sat, 11 Apr 1998, Brian White wrote:
> > I intend to package the new communicator that allow free redistribution. It
> > will go into non-free(no source), but at least the users won't have to
> > download the tarball themselves.
>
> That would be great! I posted a couple weeks ago asking for
> > Just so there's no confusion: you're refering to the Netscape-branded
> > product, right?
>
> I think we should use the following nomenclature -
>
> 1. Mozilla - Sources and binaries compiled from the sources downloaded from
> http://www.mozilla.org/
>
> 2. Netscape Communicator - Binaries d
> I intend to package the new communicator that allow free redistribution. It
> will go into non-free(no source), but at least the users won't have to
> download the tarball themselves.
That would be great! I posted a couple weeks ago asking for someone to
help with this because I don't have the
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The nice side effect of my packaging, is that in the original tarball, you
> have to download both the static and dynamic versions. My packaging has them
> split up. Also, -java is the same between Navigator and Communicator.
Any chance of getting a stan
10 matches
Mail list logo
