On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, Donn Miller wrote:
> Over the past month, in -current, I've had weird problems with
> Mozilla. The message I'm seeing on stdout is
Perhaps you'd have benn luck taking this bug report to the mozilla
developers? I don't know there's anyone on this list who is truly familiar
w
"Dr. Brain" wrote:
>
> I've had a good deal of success getting Mozilla to build straight out of the
> nightly source tar files:
> ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nightly/latest/mozilla-source.tar.gz
Over the past month, in -current, I've had weird problems with
Mozilla. The message I'm seeing
On Thu, 13 Apr 2000, David O'Brien wrote:
...
> Sounds like linux_pam would make a nice port.
No.
I don't think that the patch for linux_base:
--- Makefile.oldThu Apr 13 23:28:55 2000
+++ MakefileThu Apr 13 23:29:58 2000
@@ -90,2 +90,3 @@
readline-2.2.1-5.${MACH
On Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 12:17:03AM +0200, Michael Reifenberger wrote:
> > I don't think pam is a development tool, which makes linux_devtools the
> > wrong port. I also don't think we need pam in any other port if it's
...
> In this case, you are right.
> The problem is generally that linux ports
On 11 Apr 2000, Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami wrote:
> I was thinking about that too. Maybe you can make a few Linux library
> ports ("linux_graphics" etc.) so people who want to do something small
> don't necessarily have to install the whole enchilada.
>
> Please talk to me about repository
* From: Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Hmmm... I think we may as well break up linux_base in that case.
* linux_base is rather big as it is...
I was thinking about that too. Maybe you can make a few Linux library
ports ("linux_graphics" etc.) so people who want to do something small
On Tue, 11 Apr 2000, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
...
> I don't think pam is a development tool, which makes linux_devtools the
> wrong port. I also don't think we need pam in any other port if it's
> needed in only one or two situations. Since the ports use rpms, you can
> always, and are free, to ins
On 11 Apr 2000, Dr. Brain wrote:
> I've had a good deal of success getting Mozilla to build straight out of the
> nightly source tar files:
> ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nightly/latest/mozilla-source.tar.gz
>
> I recommend installing the jpeg and png libraries out of the ports tree and
>
Hi,
> Hmmm... I think we may as well break up linux_base in that case.
> linux_base is rather big as it is...
While you are at it, could you please add the pam-0.68-7.i386.rpm to
linux_devtools? It is needed by the SAP R/3 Installer.
Bye!
Michael Reifenberger
^.*Plaut.*$, IT, R/3 Basis, GPS
Michael Reifenberger wrote:
> > Hmmm... I think we may as well break up linux_base in that case.
> > linux_base is rather big as it is...
> While you are at it, could you please add the pam-0.68-7.i386.rpm to
> linux_devtools? It is needed by the SAP R/3 Installer.
I don't think pam is a develop
I've had a good deal of success getting Mozilla to build straight out of the
nightly source tar files:
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nightly/latest/mozilla-source.tar.gz
I recommend installing the jpeg and png libraries out of the ports tree and
using a ~/.mozconfig with the following lines:
Stephen Hocking-Senior Programmer PGS SPS Perth wrote:
>
> It needed the libjpeg & libgtk rpms from the RedHat 6.1 CD (perhaps these
> could be added to Linux_base?)
Hmmm... I think we may as well break up linux_base in that case.
linux_base is rather big as it is...
Thanks for the feedback.
-
It needed the libjpeg & libgtk rpms from the RedHat 6.1 CD (perhaps these
could be added to Linux_base?) and a whole lot of memory, but otherwise wasn't
too bad. Rather slow in some circumstances, but I hope that's owing to a bunch
of debug code being in place.
Stephen
--
The views
13 matches
Mail list logo
