sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Discussion of Spells and Grimoire items
List archive
- From: "Sergey A. Lipnevich" <sergey AT optimaltec.com>
- To: Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us>
- Cc: Source Mage - Grimoire <sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [SM-Grimoire] Explicit depend
- Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 13:52:14 -0400
I think we're out of the woods with both of these, I don't remember complains about either xfree86 or gcc not compiling (that's different from something not compiling /with/ gcc). I agree. Many spells (php and wxGTK come to mind) have explicit X instructions in ./configure, I think step one is move them to DEPENDS.
Eric Sandall wrote:
Hi all,
I would like to know what everyone thinks of using explicit dependencies
rather than implice (xfree86 and gcc)? I just had my install not work for
xdvi because it needs xfree86, but I was not asked to do so (was just
installed linuxdoc or some such).
This would also make our dependency tree more 'stable' in that it would be
a true dependency list.
-
[SM-Grimoire] Explicit depend,
Eric Sandall, 06/29/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] Explicit depend, Sergey A. Lipnevich, 06/29/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] Explicit depend,
Arwed von Merkatz, 06/29/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] Explicit depend,
Sergey A. Lipnevich, 06/29/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] Explicit depend,
Arwed von Merkatz, 06/29/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] Explicit depend,
Sergey A. Lipnevich, 06/29/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] Explicit depend,
Eric Sandall, 06/29/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] Explicit depend, Eric Womack, 06/29/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] Explicit depend, Robin Cook, 06/29/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] Explicit depend,
Eric Sandall, 06/29/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] Explicit depend, Geoffrey Derber, 06/29/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] Explicit depend,
Sergey A. Lipnevich, 06/29/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] Explicit depend,
Arwed von Merkatz, 06/29/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] Explicit depend,
Sergey A. Lipnevich, 06/29/2003
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.