Uploaded icewm 1.0.9.2.cvs.20020430-2 (sparc) to ftp-master
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 21:51:52 +0200
Source: icewm
Binary: icewm-common icewm-gnome icewm-lite icewm icewm-experimental
Architecture: sparc
Version: 1.0.9.2.cvs.20020430-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian/sparc Build Daemon <buildd@sparc.debian.org>
Changed-By: Jerome Marant <jerome@debian.org>
Description:
icewm - A wonderful Win95-OS/2-Motif-like window manager
icewm-common - A wonderful Win95-OS/2-Motif-like window manager
icewm-experimental - A wonderful Win95-OS/2-Motif-like window manager
icewm-gnome - A wonderful Win95-OS/2-Motif-like window manager
icewm-lite - A wonderful Win95-OS/2-Motif-like window manager
Closes: 145475
Changes:
icewm (1.0.9.2.cvs.20020430-2) unstable; urgency=low
.
* debian/rules: added autotools target in order to handle the
problem of outdated config.{guess, sub}. Closes: Bug#145475.
* upgraded manually config.{guess, sub} from autotools-dev because
the tarball versions do not support -t option.
* debian/control: added build dependency on autotools-dev.
Files:
ec23c8395c3eeb01a649dbfe2d43281d 229040 x11 optional icewm-common_1.0.9.2.cvs.20020430-2_sparc.deb
9711c12e6cb495e1e45a22edcec0ee22 264026 x11 optional icewm_1.0.9.2.cvs.20020430-2_sparc.deb
09bd884a3f07a84b6d00c6a5723b3270 266324 x11 optional icewm-gnome_1.0.9.2.cvs.20020430-2_sparc.deb
4187dc690e8c161aa6a4c53e962526ad 146960 x11 optional icewm-lite_1.0.9.2.cvs.20020430-2_sparc.deb
b78d0b69f5b5a4c808d812a830113a09 294262 x11 optional icewm-experimental_1.0.9.2.cvs.20020430-2_sparc.deb
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.6 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iEYEARECAAYFAjzUPxgACgkQgD/uEicUG7B/MwCdFGk5DBHtGJUYM8ZdiQZjoJON
MBQAoJ1Wm0GkzDZ0QsePcKNxvJs21ipu
=uykR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-sparc-changes-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: