Re: [Elliot Lee <sopwith@redhat.com>] 1.0.50 so far
"Martin Bialasinski" <martin@internet-treff.uni-koeln.de> writes:
> * "Michael" == Michael Alan Dorman <mdorman@debian.org> wrote:
> Michael> Gtk---1.0.3.tar.gz
> Marcus Brinkmann said on -devel he is ready and waiting for some gnome core
> package to bu installed so he can recompile it (IIRC)
I'll check around---I haven't been keeping good track.
I didn't realize I was going to be Debian's gnome-1.0.50 release
co-ordinator until today. :-)
> Michael> libghttp-1.0.4.tar.gz audiofile-0.1.9.tar.gz
> Michael> xchat-1.2.1.tar.gz glib-1.2.5.tar.gz
> Michael> gnumeric-0.38.tar.gz gnome-audio-1.0.0.tar.gz gtk+-1.2.5.tar.gz
> Up to date in unstable.
Does anyone know to what extent libghttp depends on anything else? In
other words, are we going to want a recompile to gain some benefit
from updated gnome-libs or some such?
> mc 4.5.39 is in Incoming. As it now creates a third package
> (mc-common), I don't expect it to be moved into potato until next year
> ;)
Well, gnome-libs was moved in pretty quickly, even though I foolishly
created the gnome-faq package. So there is hope...:-)
> bit skeptical about including gdm at all since the maintainer seems
> AWOL.)
Does anyone here have any feelings about gdm? I liked it, but when it
broke several months ago, I just went back to xdm. I looked briefly
at the package, but it's a beast. Given that even the upstream GNOME
people seem pretty sour on it, should we try and have it yanked off
ftp site?
Mike.
Reply to: