Re: Proposal: Document reasons for unpackeable software
Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 03:17:34PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 03:41:31PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > > Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > > > > So, all for it, but we need someone who offers to do the work (as
> > > > > always).
> > > >
> > > > Why is it me so often...
> > >
> > > I hereby change my opinion and offer to help you. Just getting
> > > out-of-context information of not-yet-finished discussion in the
> > > weekly DWN is getting on my nerves, so I will have to subscribe
> > > anyway :(
> >
> > Err... some parse errors... But I read help... we should go on
> > with mplayer and squeak...
>
> Hmm, mplayer seems a bit heavy for the start ;) Will try to write
> something useful about the squeak license.
Very cool! On a related note, this would help me a lot for another
project. Squeak people told me that they have resolved the font
problems, though, in the meantime. This may be important information
for us as well. Here's an additional link (but Google provides it as
well): http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/159
Regards,
Joey
--
Life is a lot easier when you have someone to share it with. -- Sean Perry
Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.
Reply to: