Re: So what needs done / packaged?
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 09:04:40PM +0200, Paul van Tilburg wrote:
> > I think these packages wouldn't need much work if they were to be made
> > official. They do not comply with the proposed draft in a number of
> > minor issues (such as package naming, etc), but they're not too bad
> > otherwise.
>
> No, I don't think so either. But conforming to the current draft policy
> already would be nice. When renamed and stuff, I can try to build them
> here (I don't believe there were powerpc packages :)) and have a look
> if they can be uploaded. Are they ruby-version dependent anyway?
> Are they up-to-date with current Fox upstream releases?
They do need 1.8 AFAIK; as for libfox1.0, the only requirement was
>= 1.0.2x IIRC, I built them with 1.0.42 with no problems.
I'll look into that after the tech-preview release of rpa-base (maybe
before :).
--
Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com
- DDD no longer requires the librx library. Consequently, librx
errors can no more cause DDD to crash.
-- DDD
Reply to: