Re: mc problem - solved.
firstname.lastname@example.org (Lindsay Allen) writes:
> > In another interesting note, when I replace mc.ext from mc-4 source to
> > /etc/mc/mc.ext, *.deb and *.tar.gz browsing is lot faster using
> > mc_3.5.17-1_i386.deb:) If you are wondering why I didn't keep mc-4, I like to
> > keep this system *.deb format as much as possible, so I'll wait for mc-4.deb:)
> You might be waiting for a long time. The package maintainer seems to
> have lost interest. Perhaps we ask Paul nicely if he would take on the
Did you mail the official package maintainer directly, Lindsay?
Note that there is an *unofficial* Debian mc-4.0 binary provided by me
available on the regular Midnight Commander FTP sites, which can be
installed within the regular Debian package management. And yes, i
would love to take over maintenance of MC to keep it more up to date
than it was kept in the past.
I already had an email conversation with the current maintainer of the
MC package Fernando Alegre <email@example.com> because i
wanted to take over maintenance of MC out of being unsatisfied with
the update frequency as well. Fernando stated that he wants to keep
the package. Unfortunately he also stated, that he won't make an
update release for stable but that he will concentrate on an libc6
release for unstable. I suppose his source distribution will compile
with stable's libc5 anyway.
Anyway, i consider it rather strange that Fernando isn't bothering to
participate in this thread? But probably he is only reading along in
debian-devel and not debian-user and simply doesn't know of it at all.
> The odd man out seemed to be tar, so I downgraded elm to the bo/tar with
> the result that mc now works as advertised. The question now is - do I
> lodge a bug report on mc or on tar? What evidence is there to support
> either action?
I suppose you'd rather report a bug on tar. I had actually trouble
with a former tar as well (it segfaulted with "tar cvMf ...") and the
solution was to simply recompile from it's unaltered Debian source
package to make it work again.
> mc_4.0-1 is a big improvement for me and I suggest that you all get hold
> of a copy. There are copies on many mirrors including sunsite.
Yes, mc-4.0 is a *very* much better version of MC and i wouldn't want
to downgrade to mc-3.5.17 again. Anyway i think it is necessary to
keep stable up to date with an officially released non-devel version
like mc-4.0 and i hope that Fernando will make up his mind and
provides a binary for stable as well. Maybe interested parties should
ask him politely for an update in stable?
Cheers, P. *8^)
Paul Seelig firstname.lastname@example.org
African Music Archive - Institute for Ethnology and Africa Studies
Johannes Gutenberg-University - Forum 6 - 55099 Mainz/Germany
My Homepage in the WWW at the URL http://www.uni-mainz.de/~pseelig
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .