sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: Dufflebunk <dufflebunk AT dufflebunk.homeip.net>
- To: Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us>
- Cc: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] xfree86 spell problem?
- Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 15:38:10 -0500 (EST)
The slang and ncurses could replace the gcc one rather than delete it.
This would remove the need for removing the files from the install log.
On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Eric Sandall wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 10:44:11PM +0100, Julian v. Bock wrote:
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> >>>>> "ES" == Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us> writes:
> >>
> >> ES> Correct, this is a "problem" with the new ncurses (5.3) spell, or
> >> ES> rather, the new spell provides the proper ncurses.h, but gcc also
> >> ES> provides it's own ncurses.h, which does not allow some programs to
> >> ES> compile against it, so you need to remove the gcc supplied
> >> ES> ncurses.h as Joel says above. (Did I get the logic right?)
> >>
> >> Almost ;)
> >>
> >> gcc does not come with its own ncurses.h, but it creates its own
> >> version at compile time. If ncurses is updated afterwards the gcc
> >> version causes conflicts since it is not updated.
> >
> > It does the same thing with slang.h, which can break slrn. Are these
> > file required for anything or can they be safely deleted?
>
> Perhaps we should have slang and ncurses remove their older, incompatable
> gcc versions when they're installed? They should also update the install
> log for the respective spells, otherwise a 'cast --fix' will put them
> back, or is this what we want?
>
> Any other spells that do this?
>
> -One of Four
> a.k.a. sandalle
>
>
--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
-----------------
PGP public key at
http://wwwkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x3327A9A5
F1
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] xfree86 spell problem?
, (continued)
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] xfree86 spell problem?,
Sergey A Lipnevich, 12/06/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] xfree86 spell problem?, Dufflebunk, 12/07/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] xfree86 spell problem?,
Michael Denio, 12/06/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] xfree86 spell problem?, Julian v. Bock, 12/27/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] xfree86 spell problem?,
Michael Denio, 12/06/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] xfree86 spell problem?,
bluebird, 12/06/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] xfree86 spell problem?,
Eric Sandall, 12/06/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] xfree86 spell problem?,
Julian v. Bock, 12/06/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] xfree86 spell problem?,
bluebird, 12/06/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] xfree86 spell problem?,
Eric Sandall, 12/07/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] xfree86 spell problem?, Dufflebunk, 12/07/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] xfree86 spell problem?, Eric Sandall, 12/07/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] xfree86 spell problem?, bluebird, 12/07/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] xfree86 spell problem?, Dufflebunk, 12/07/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] xfree86 spell problem?, Casey Harkins, 12/10/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] xfree86 spell problem?, bluebird, 12/10/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] xfree86 spell problem?, Casey Harkins, 12/11/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] xfree86 spell problem?, Eric Schabell, 12/11/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] xfree86 spell problem?,
Eric Sandall, 12/07/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] xfree86 spell problem?,
bluebird, 12/06/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] xfree86 spell problem?,
Julian v. Bock, 12/06/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] xfree86 spell problem?,
Eric Sandall, 12/06/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] xfree86 spell problem?,
bluebird, 12/06/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] xfree86 spell problem?, Julian v. Bock, 12/08/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] xfree86 spell problem?,
Sergey A Lipnevich, 12/06/2002
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.