Re: aplus-fsf REMOVED from testing

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: aplus-fsf REMOVED from testing
From: Sune Vuorela <nospam@vuorela.dk>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 06:34:14 +0000 (UTC)
Message-id: <[🔎] slrnh43i76.720.nospam@sshway.ssh.pusling.com>
References: <E1MJ91j-0005Cp-4n@ries.debian.org> <[🔎] 19009.34416.983611.328859@ml330.occamsrazor.net> <[🔎] slrnh432br.720.nospam@sshway.ssh.pusling.com> <[🔎] 19009.36524.199132.626471@ml330.occamsrazor.net>

On 2009-06-24, Neil Roeth <neil@debian.org> wrote:
> Thanks. So, another alternative would be for xemacs to remove its dependence
> on gtk 1.2, correct?  I'll explore that angle as well.

Yes. that's anotehr alternative

/Sune

Reply to:

References:
- aplus-fsf REMOVED from testing
  - From: Neil Roeth <neil@debian.org>
- Re: aplus-fsf REMOVED from testing
  - From: Sune Vuorela <nospam@vuorela.dk>
- Re: aplus-fsf REMOVED from testing
  - From: Neil Roeth <neil@debian.org>

Prev by Date: Re: [Debconf-discuss] using OpenPGP notations to indicate keysigning practices [was: Re: GPG keysigning?]
Next by Date: Re: [Debconf-discuss] using OpenPGP notations to indicate keysigning practices [was: Re: GPG keysigning?]
Previous by thread: Re: aplus-fsf REMOVED from testing
Next by thread: (debian control) error with dpkg-gencontrol
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread