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 |