| 1 |
On Sun, 23 Sep 2001 18:32:41 -0400 |
| 2 |
"Bruce A. Locke" <blocke@××××××.org> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Ah someone shoot me... I found the source of the problem... Whoever did |
| 5 |
the original -r3 BitchX ebuild forgot about the makefile, etc patch we |
| 6 |
have in the files directory. I checked in a copy of the patch for -r3 |
| 7 |
while trying to debug stuff and thats probably why it started building for |
| 8 |
other people after I complained. :( With this patch BitchX now detected |
| 9 |
esound fine. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Sorry everyone... |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> On 23 Sep 2001 17:14:18 +0200 |
| 14 |
> Mikael Hallendal <micke@×××××××××××.se> wrote: |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> > Btw, what idiot would name the package so that 0.2.22 is not newer |
| 17 |
than |
| 18 |
> > 0.2.5? |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> I'm assuming this is the case because the test for 0.2.5+ fails in the |
| 21 |
> BitchX configure script and the authors website shows 0.2.8 as the most |
| 22 |
> recent version. Either way BitchX isn't building for me with 0.2.22. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 25 |
> Bruce A. Locke |
| 26 |
> blocke@××××××.org |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> _______________________________________________ |
| 30 |
> gentoo-dev mailing list |
| 31 |
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××.org |
| 32 |
> http://cvs.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 38 |
Bruce A. Locke |
| 39 |
blocke@××××××.org |
Archives