Re: modconf and whiptail

On Thu, Feb 05, 1998 at 11:21:25AM +0100, Frere Roy wrote: > I am trying to install modconf_0.2.15.deb but I get the message > "whiptail is not installed" > > I have, however, installed newt0.21_0.21-3.deb which has installed > whiptail. > > Have I missed something? > > Thanks, Roy There's a

Re: modconf and whiptail

On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, Frere Roy wrote: > I am trying to install modconf_0.2.15.deb but I get the message > "whiptail is not installed" > > I have, however, installed newt0.21_0.21-3.deb which has installed > whiptail. > > Have I missed something? Yes, newt0.21_0.21-4.deb which no longer contai

Re: modconf and whiptail

On Thu, Feb 05, 1998 at 11:21:25AM +0100, Frere Roy wrote: > I am trying to install modconf_0.2.15.deb but I get the message "whiptail > is not installed" > > I have, however, installed newt0.21_0.21-3.deb which has installed > whiptail. With a newer newt release, whiptail is now in a package of

modconf and whiptail

I am trying to install modconf_0.2.15.deb but I get the message "whiptail is not installed" I have, however, installed newt0.21_0.21-3.deb which has installed whiptail. Have I missed something? Thanks, Roy -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PR

Re: modconf and whiptail?

On Mon, 2 Feb 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I went to upgrade and it says the new version of modconf depends on whiptail > which isn't a package, teh 'i' command shows two different depends though, > one says newt0.2 (or similiar number) and the other shows whiptail, is this > a bug? if not wher

modconf and whiptail?

I went to upgrade and it says the new version of modconf depends on whiptail which isn't a package, teh 'i' command shows two different depends though, one says newt0.2 (or similiar number) and the other shows whiptail, is this a bug? if not where is whiptail? G'razel the shifty-kitty [EMAIL PR