Re: Packaging Gimp .99.15
On Tue, Dec 02, 1997 at 11:20:05PM -0500, Wintermute wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 02, 1997 at 07:07:45PM -0500, Wintermute wrote:
> > > Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 02, 1997 at 01:54:18AM -0500, Wintermute wrote:
> > > > > How about the fact that there are numerous packages that depend on
> > > > > others that AREN'T there...for starters?
> KDE was an example of dependency problems. However, as a proving ground
> if you like.. attempt to get the NIS version in hamm to work with the
> NIS available in bo. It looks like a break to me.
Yes, I seem to recall someone else on the list explaining this.
Is is a temporary bug with hamm or is it just a new version
which is incompatible (and always will be) with the old one?
If the latter, it's not a hamm problem.
> And for the record Hammish I was stating opinion ...IMHO I don't like
> the looks of hamm yet to upgrade. I'll WAIT until it's got most of the
> bugs worked out before I throw myself into the fray. I used to be
Fine. I just wanted to know what it is about hamm that you don't
like so far. The developers need to know what problems people
are having with the software and the packaging before it can be
I started with Slackware 2.3, a couple of years ago. I upgraded
it by hand to ELF, effectively Slackware 3.0, eventually got sick
of the huge mess they called an OS and installed Debian 1.1.
Good move. :-)
Hamish Moffatt, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .