Menu
▾
▴
lfs-via-rpm-devel — LFS via RPM Developers Mailing List
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2002 |
Jan
(17) |
Feb
(67) |
Mar
(20) |
Apr
(6) |
May
(4) |
Jun
(1) |
Jul
(2) |
Aug
(6) |
Sep
(1) |
Oct
(4) |
Nov
(1) |
Dec
(1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003 |
Jan
(4) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: Jaco G. <ja...@pu...> - 2003-01-23 06:21:49
|
Mario, > Jaco are you making the filelist by hand or are you yousing a special tool. > this is the main reason why making specs is horrible. I know. Look, it is a bie easier using the XML specs since you can contain the file lists in an external file, which speeds things up quite a bit. I would suggest that you take a look at what I've made available and see if it helps. > i want to help > are the lfs specs ready if not i would help > > or are you already in blfs book I have both LFS and some BLFS scripts. (Basic X environment, with KDE 3.1B2). I've made everything I have available, just take a stroll to http://www.puxedo.org/lvr/ and read the different descriptions for the archives available. Greetings, Jaco |
|
From: Mario F. <Mar...@gm...> - 2003-01-22 15:14:21
|
---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: Re: [LvR] still alive? Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 16:00:43 +0100 From: Mario Fetka <Mar...@gm...> To: Jaco Greeff <ja...@pu...> On Wednesday 22 January 2003 13:37, Jaco Greeff wrote: > Nathan, > > Sorry in the long delay in answering, I've been away for the most of Ja= n. > > > I was wondering whether there was still any work going on with LvR. T= he > > CVS repository on SF has not been updated for a LONG time, but I see= m > > to remember that there was some work going on with updating to LFS 4 > > and XML specs. Is this still available somewhere? > > I've just updated the site saying that I just don't have the time to sp= end > on it anymore. I'm sad to lket it go, but it is just too much work for = one > person to do on his own. (More people help in actually keeping motivate= d as > well.) > > I'll make what I've got available tonight, somebody will be able to do > whatever with what's available. > > Greetings, > Jaco Jaco are you making the filelist by hand or are you yousing a special too= l. this is the main reason why making specs is horrible. i want to help are the lfs specs ready if not i would help or are you already in blfs book at the moment i am thinking on a command for this frustrating filelist (f= irst change prefix to another location) find ?? > filelist wfg Mario ------------------------------------------------------- |
|
From: Jaco G. <ja...@pu...> - 2003-01-22 12:38:40
|
Nathan, Sorry in the long delay in answering, I've been away for the most of Jan. > I was wondering whether there was still any work going on with LvR. The > CVS repository on SF has not been updated for a LONG time, but I seem > to remember that there was some work going on with updating to LFS 4 > and XML specs. Is this still available somewhere? I've just updated the site saying that I just don't have the time to spend on it anymore. I'm sad to lket it go, but it is just too much work for one person to do on his own. (More people help in actually keeping motivated as well.) I'll make what I've got available tonight, somebody will be able to do whatever with what's available. Greetings, Jaco |
|
From: Nathan O. <ow...@en...> - 2003-01-12 03:04:06
|
Hi, I was wondering whether there was still any work going on with LvR. The CVS repository on SF has not been updated for a LONG time, but I seem to remember that there was some work going on with updating to LFS 4 and XML specs. Is this still available somewhere? Thanks, Nathan |
|
From: Dirk K. <d.k...@in...> - 2002-12-20 20:03:50
|
i have made some spec files some time ago (lvr-0.3). you can download the specfiles (or srpms) at ftp://auf.schalke.internnetz.de/LvR/0.3/blfs-specs i attached a list with the new packages to this mail. i hope these packages are useful ;-) with best regards, dirk. |
|
From: Ostash! <os...@uk...> - 2002-11-29 21:27:16
|
=F0=D2=C9=D7=A6=D4 ! Is this mailing list alive? =F5=D3=D8=CF=C7=CF =CE=C1=CA=CB=D2=C1=DD=CF=C7=CF, Ostash! np: =E5=C7=CF=D2 =C9 =EF=D0=C9=DA=C4=C5=CE=C5=D7=DB=C9=C5 - =EF=D4=D2=D1= =C4 =CE=C5 =DA=C1=CD=C5=D4=C9=CC =D0=CF=D4=C5=D2=C9 =C2=CF=CA=C3=C1 =2E.. [Team =E7=C1=D2=D1=DEi =D3=C5=D7=C1=D3=D4=CF=D0=CF=CC=D8=D3=D8=CB= i =C4i=D7=DE=C1=D4=C1] [Team =F5=CB=D2=C1=A7=CE=D3=D8=CB=C1 =CD=CF=D7=C1= ] --- The Bat! 1.53d Windows NT 5.0.2195 Service Pack 2 * Origin: =F0=D2=CF=C7=D2=C1=CD=CD=D5 =C3=C9=CB=CC=CF=CD =CE=C5 =C9=D3= =D0=CF=D2=D4=C9=DB=D8 (os...@uk...) |
|
From: Julie S. <se...@wi...> - 2002-10-16 13:04:17
|
Hi, Move www.puxedo.org to WizSystems today! Are you having trouble with your hosting provider too? If you are, I suggest you take a look at the hosting services provided by Wizsystems, one of the fastest growing hosting companies on the internet. Unbeatable Service: 1. Dedicated 24/7 support to all customers 365 days a year. Via phone, chat, email and through our online knowledge base. 2. Get the help you need when you need it - no questions asked. 3. Specialized provider of high-quality, reliable and scalable hosting solutions. 4. Catering specifically for small to medium sized businesses world wide. Sign Up Now! Start benefiting from an improved, reliable hosting service. Pricing Plans - click at the link below: http://p1j2m3a4.pdhost.com/pdsvr/www/r?1000044939.606.13.llZAHmklzqVkqx Best regards Julie Scott WizSystems Sales Support Email: jul...@wi... http://www.wizsystems.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This offer is brought to you by WizSystems. We respect your privacy. If you do not wish to receive future mailings from us, please go to the link below: http://p1j2m3a4.pdhost.com/pdsvr/www/r?1000044939.606.3.SosCDZ+gBIyMxp |
|
From: Michael H. <hon...@ma...> - 2002-10-06 04:03:11
|
Some bad news, the patch didnt work :( not to worry. I have put on my problem solving belt and are about to it the streets of google. If you have any other suggestions thye will be welcome. Cheers Mike On Sat, 2002-10-05 at 19:38, Jaco Greeff wrote: > > Greeting to you all, > > Greetings, :) > > > Let first by starting to saying well done for the effort you developers > > and hackers are putting in :). > > I'll start off by helping you on the spec and then totally confusing you :) > > > I am having a small issue well using the glibc.spec. I get the following > > error :: > > This is a strange one. Everything worked perfectly and then it started > rearing it's ugly head. Some searching on google and I found the fix for it > which also seems to affect gcc. (If glibc compiles without problems.) I'm > not sure that the LFS patch is everything it should be, but made another > patch to address this issue and to make sure gcc compiles afterwards. > Confused? Yes, so am I. > > The attached glibc-2.2.5-sys_errlist.patch.bz2 fixes this problem and has > been lifted from the glibc mailing list. (It also makes sure that gcc > compiles next.) > > > Anyone got any Ideas? I have looked through the LFS mailing list but > > cannt find anything relevent. > > Ok, now to the confusing part. I'm busy re-doing the specs in XML and are > currently 90% through the LFS base. (This gives us some greater flexibility > and makes writing suplementary tools so much earsier.) The above problem has > been fixed in the XML'ised specs. Unfortionately I haven't put this into CVS > yet and haven't updated the site in yes, well, ages... > > I'll make these available today if there are people out there wanting to > play. At this point there are two packages that hasn't been completed: > kernel and rpm. (Not the static version) > > Greetings, > Jaco > |
|
From: Michael H. <hon...@ma...> - 2002-10-05 08:30:54
|
Thank you for the patch. I will try it and let you know. thanks again. Cheers Mike On Sat, 2002-10-05 at 19:38, Jaco Greeff wrote: > > Greeting to you all, > > Greetings, :) > > > Let first by starting to saying well done for the effort you developers > > and hackers are putting in :). > > I'll start off by helping you on the spec and then totally confusing you :) > > > I am having a small issue well using the glibc.spec. I get the following > > error :: > > This is a strange one. Everything worked perfectly and then it started > rearing it's ugly head. Some searching on google and I found the fix for it > which also seems to affect gcc. (If glibc compiles without problems.) I'm > not sure that the LFS patch is everything it should be, but made another > patch to address this issue and to make sure gcc compiles afterwards. > Confused? Yes, so am I. > > The attached glibc-2.2.5-sys_errlist.patch.bz2 fixes this problem and has > been lifted from the glibc mailing list. (It also makes sure that gcc > compiles next.) > > > Anyone got any Ideas? I have looked through the LFS mailing list but > > cannt find anything relevent. > > Ok, now to the confusing part. I'm busy re-doing the specs in XML and are > currently 90% through the LFS base. (This gives us some greater flexibility > and makes writing suplementary tools so much earsier.) The above problem has > been fixed in the XML'ised specs. Unfortionately I haven't put this into CVS > yet and haven't updated the site in yes, well, ages... > > I'll make these available today if there are people out there wanting to > play. At this point there are two packages that hasn't been completed: > kernel and rpm. (Not the static version) > > Greetings, > Jaco > |
|
From: Jaco G. <ja...@pu...> - 2002-10-05 07:38:27
|
> Greeting to you all, Greetings, :) > Let first by starting to saying well done for the effort you developers > and hackers are putting in :). I'll start off by helping you on the spec and then totally confusing you :) > I am having a small issue well using the glibc.spec. I get the following > error :: This is a strange one. Everything worked perfectly and then it started rearing it's ugly head. Some searching on google and I found the fix for it which also seems to affect gcc. (If glibc compiles without problems.) I'm not sure that the LFS patch is everything it should be, but made another patch to address this issue and to make sure gcc compiles afterwards. Confused? Yes, so am I. The attached glibc-2.2.5-sys_errlist.patch.bz2 fixes this problem and has been lifted from the glibc mailing list. (It also makes sure that gcc compiles next.) > Anyone got any Ideas? I have looked through the LFS mailing list but > cannt find anything relevent. Ok, now to the confusing part. I'm busy re-doing the specs in XML and are currently 90% through the LFS base. (This gives us some greater flexibility and makes writing suplementary tools so much earsier.) The above problem has been fixed in the XML'ised specs. Unfortionately I haven't put this into CVS yet and haven't updated the site in yes, well, ages... I'll make these available today if there are people out there wanting to play. At this point there are two packages that hasn't been completed: kernel and rpm. (Not the static version) Greetings, Jaco |
|
From: Roy at S. Inc.<roy...@se...> - 2002-09-09 11:17:23
|
There appears to be a problem on this page of your site.
On page http://www.puxedo.org/lvr/howto/dynamic.php
when you click on "here",
the link to http://www.puxedo.org/lvr/download/stable/howto/lvr-howto.txt.bz2
gives the error: Not found.
As recommended by the Robot Guidelines, this email is to explain our robots activities and to let you know about one of the broken links we encountered. LinkWalker does not store or publish the content of your pages, but rather uses the link information to update our map of the World Wide Web.
Are these reports helpful? I'd love some feedback. If you prefer not to receive these occasional error notices please let me know.
Roy Bryant
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Roy Bryant, roy...@se...
President
SEVENtwentyfour Inc. ("Always watching the Web")
http://www.seventwentyfour.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
From: Sarah W. <bo...@tr...> - 2002-08-31 19:16:25
|
Hi I visited www.puxedo.org, and noticed that you're not listed on some search engines! I think we can offer you a service which can help you increase traffic and the number of visitors to your website. I would like to introduce you to TrafficMagnet.com. We offer a unique technology that will submit your website to over 300,000 search engines and directories every month. You'll be surprised by the low cost, and by how effective this website promotion method can be. To find out more about TrafficMagnet and the cost for submitting your website to over 300,000 search engines and directories, visit us at: http://emaserver.trafficmagnet.net/trafficmagnet/www/r?1000044827.486.23.wHTyjJNdTqjj0T I would love to hear from you. Best Regards, Sarah Williams Sales and Marketing E-mail: Sar...@tr... http://www.TrafficMagnet.com This email was sent to lvr...@pu.... I understand that you may NOT wish to receive information from me by email. To be removed from this and other offers, simply go to the link below: http://emaserver.trafficmagnet.net/trafficmagnet/www/optoutredirect?UC=Lead&UI=11077611 |
|
From: Jaco G. <ja...@pu...> - 2002-08-12 08:06:40
|
R P Herrold wrote: > Interesting on the date choice -- I was building with the beta > last night I only got as far as downloading it. Modem and all. Plus making sure I've got all the updated packages took me the better bit of the weekend. > 3.1.x looks like a dead letter. There was an item in the GCC > web status logging, from which I concluded I was going to wait > for 3.2 Indeed. I know Mandrake uses 3.1.1 with the 3.2 cvs changes backported as not to break compatibility. (And make sure they don't have the recompile the whole cooker in the middle of a beta cycle.) Both RedHat "next" (8.0 I assume) and Mandrake 9.0 will be based on 3.2. No use in breaking binary compatibility twice. >>In addition, I'm busy >>readying a tarred bootstrap image for easier startup times. > > not losing the ability to in turn generate the tarball itself > by script, so that a cross-arch compile is possible, I hope -- Yip. With all the different distros etc out there it is very time consuming to try and debug all bootstrap breakages. Since you are only using it as a base, it might as well be supplied. This evens the playing field and allows us to focus on breakages withing a known environment. The script seems complete at this point, it is just not working that well under Mandrake 9.0 Beta 2. (8.1 seems fine.) > I've a Solaris chassis still running RH 5.2, when I feel like > running up my power bill. Come November, I will ... for > heating <grin> That will be great. I know a couple of people have tried under "other" archs with limited success. RPM seems to be a thorn in the side. I'll have a good look at it really soon and hopefully get it working. > Just the opposite -- I think the Anaconda/Kickstart XML effort > and the tools which Brent Fox is working there will be readily > moved to the RPM XML sphere. Umm, do you have a URL/link for this? I'll jump on google and hopefully find something. (I'm not on the Rawhide mailing lists.) > Lots of discontent expressed in Mandrake with the new Cooker > RPM tool re-write -- but I think they are probably an > improvement. Not sure about that one. I've resorted to all command-line tools now. Well, then again it doesn't work that well on the oversized 9.0 Beta 2 CD's. In Beta 3 it might start working again. > I fed maybe 5 new pages into RPM website in the last week. I > thought http://www.rpm.org/dark_corners/ would stir some > comment, but none yet. Since I've just moved at work and the network is up and down and up and down and ... I haven't taken a peek yet. Will do when I have a stable environment. > I know Jaco is also a CodeWeavers tester -- busy week > there last week, too. What I wouldn't do for a free t-shirt ;) > Good to see you surface. Not exactly doing the stuff I want to yet, but it is coming along. Greetings, Jaco |
|
From: R P H. <he...@ow...> - 2002-08-12 07:20:38
|
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, Jaco Greeff wrote:
> > heh -- Jaco is newly married; I am pounding out code at my day
> > job and testing commercial stuff all the time; and dunno about
> > the other folks.
sadly, local time is 02:53 Monday, and I am _still_ pounding
out Sunday's code -- although I am running timing testing at
the moment. 6m52s to extract 4.2k rows from a 4M row MySQL
database table, and I have not started key optimization yet.
-- I just tossed some code into the K12LTSP which
I dinked on for recreation, wasting a good couple of hours
when I needed a change of pace.
> Ok, this is what is in the pipeline: I'm waiting for gcc 3.2 which
> should be released by Tuesday.
Interesting on the date choice -- I was building with the beta
last night
/var/ftp/pub/mirror/redhat/rawhide/SRPMS/gcc-3.2-0.1.1.src.rpm
and
/var/ftp/pub/mirror/redhat/rawhide/SRPMS/compat-gcc-7.3-2.96.110.src.rpm
and got the rather tricky Mosfet Liquid kde-3 theme to build
yesterday after a largely mechanical dependency resolution
process. see:
ftp.owlriver.com /pub/local/ORC/mosfet-liquid/
looks and runs fine -- lots of fun geek bait and stuff to
waste time decorating a X-top with ...
> I'm not going to re-do with 3.1, 3.1.1
> and then break binary compatibility again.
3.1.x looks like a dead letter. There was an item in the GCC
web status logging, from which I concluded I was going to wait
for 3.2
> In addition, I'm busy
> readying a tarred bootstrap image for easier startup times.
not losing the ability to in turn generate the tarball itself
by script, so that a cross-arch compile is possible, I hope --
I've a Solaris chassis still running RH 5.2, when I feel like
running up my power bill. Come November, I will ... for
heating <grin>
In addition,
> I'm looking at my RPM XML stuff again - the idea is to migrate all the
> spec files to XML for the next release. I've lost quite a bit of time on
> the XML RPM tools and will problably miss the RPM 4.1 release becaue of
> that. *sigh* I'm sure people on the RPM mailing list have forgotten
> about me by now.
Just the opposite -- I think the Anaconda/Kickstart XML effort
and the tools which Brent Fox is working there will be readily
moved to the RPM XML sphere. The stabilization in RPM-4.1 is
coming nicely, and there was a long post from JBJ, responding
to a private concern commo of mine on the new db4 lockfiles --
no responses yet, although I expect PLD and Kirk Bauer to
weigh in.
Lots of discontent expressed in Mandrake with the new Cooker
RPM tool re-write -- but I think they are probably an
improvement.
I fed maybe 5 new pages into RPM website in the last week. I
thought http://www.rpm.org/dark_corners/ would stir some
comment, but none yet.
> So, yes, the mailing list is quiet, but the base needs to be correct
> before any further frenzies. (That means gcc 3.2, XML spec files in RPM
> etc.)
I know Jaco is also a CodeWeavers tester -- busy week
there last week, too.
Good to see you surface.
-0- Russ herrold
|
|
From: Jaco G. <ja...@pu...> - 2002-08-12 05:21:54
|
R P Herrold wrote: > On Sat, 10 Aug 2002, Mario Fetka wrote: >>nothing happend on this list >> >>is LvR dead !! >> >>if not what is te status of the project >> >>are you awaiting lfs 4.0 > > > heh -- Jaco is newly married; I am pounding out code at my day > job and testing commercial stuff all the time; and dunno about > the other folks. Yes, Jaco is newly married and still trying to get into any kind of work after the honeymoon. It hasn't been made easier with my laptop being stolen either. As Russ can testify, I've been very, very slow lately. (And that might even be an understatement.) Ok, this is what is in the pipeline: I'm waiting for gcc 3.2 which should be released by Tuesday. I'm not going to re-do with 3.1, 3.1.1 and then break binary compatibility again. In addition, I'm busy readying a tarred bootstrap image for easier startup times. In addition, I'm looking at my RPM XML stuff again - the idea is to migrate all the spec files to XML for the next release. I've lost quite a bit of time on the XML RPM tools and will problably miss the RPM 4.1 release becaue of that. *sigh* I'm sure people on the RPM mailing list have forgotten about me by now. So, yes, the mailing list is quiet, but the base needs to be correct before any further frenzies. (That means gcc 3.2, XML spec files in RPM etc.) Greetings, Jaco |
|
From: R P H. <he...@ow...> - 2002-08-10 18:37:54
|
On Sat, 10 Aug 2002, Mario Fetka wrote: > nothing happend on this list > > is LvR dead !! > > if not what is te status of the project > > are you awaiting lfs 4.0 heh -- Jaco is newly married; I am pounding out code at my day job and testing commercial stuff all the time; and dunno about the other folks. -- Russ Herrold |
|
From: Mario F. <mar...@gm...> - 2002-08-10 17:18:12
|
nothing happend on this list is LvR dead !! if not what is te status of the project are you awaiting lfs 4.0 wfg Mario |
|
From: Mario F. <mar...@gm...> - 2002-07-28 09:46:36
|
at the moment i am writing a specfile for the java from sratch hint: 1. problem: i need to change the PATH variable; add a directory. for the binary part for the javafromsratch 2. problem: i nedd e way too add 2 lines to the /etc/profile file for %preinstall and then for %preuninstall removing these 2 lines attached is the first release of this specfile (still not working one or = more=20 files missing for compilation) wfg Geos |
|
From: Roy B. <roy...@SE...> - 2002-07-09 03:22:53
|
There appears to be a problem on this page of your site.
On page http://www.puxedo.org/lvr/howto/dynamic.php
when you click on "here",
the link to
http://www.puxedo.org/lvr/download/stable/howto/lvr-howto.html.bz2
gives the error: Not found.
As recommended by the Robot Guidelines, this email is to explain our robot's
activities and to let you know about one of the broken links we encountered.
LinkWalker does not store or publish the content of your pages, but rather
uses the link information to update our map of the World Wide Web.
Are these reports helpful? I'd love some feedback. If you prefer not to
receive these occasional error notices please let me know.
Roy Bryant
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Roy Bryant, roy...@se...
President
SEVENtwentyfour Inc. ("Always watching the Web")
http://www.seventwentyfour.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
From: daniel-zilli <dan...@bo...> - 2002-06-06 11:52:20
|
confirm 349395 __________________________________________________________________________ Quer ter seu pr=F3prio endere=E7o na Internet? Garanta j=E1 o seu e ainda ganhe cinco e-mails personalizados. Dom=EDniosBOL - http://dominios.bol.com.br |
|
From: Jaco G. <ja...@pu...> - 2002-05-15 11:14:39
|
Guys and gals, I've got this idea for the management of sources that I would like some feedback on. LvR is a source-based "distro" and should stay that way altough we can (in the far, far future when there is some sort of installer) potentially also have a binary LvR. I just want to concentrate on the source thingy for now, the rest is a pipedream. Currently I see the following problems with the distribution of the sources in the current form: (There will be others) 1. The main site (puxedo.org) is located in South Africa. For me this is perfect, but can be less than perfect (read: damn slow) for the rest of the world ;) 2. We have to continuously update the source packages when they are available at other places, well mirrored and actuall kept current; 3. Lack of disk-space can make the one-stop shop a bit of a nightmare. For instance: I don't even want to put the KDE sources on there since it does exist everythere. This is typically the case for <insert-your-favourite-package-here>. 4. We don't have the actual real distribution point anywhere in the specs; I've given this quite a bit of thought and came up with the following idea - which I've started to implement already. If we decide that this is the way to go, or come up with a better (or evolution) of the idea it will require some changes to the spec files but could reap the benefits qiuite soon. Basically there exists as source manager program (C++ code, natively compiled, easily build statically) which we will call "srcmgr" (for now at least) that manages the sources and downloads on the local manchine. srcmgr has the following fucntions: 1. Verification of the source archives on the local machine before even doing an unpack. (Both size and MD5 sum verification) 2. Ability to download a single source from any number of mirrors in a variety of formats (.bz2, .gz, etc.) without having to explicitly specify this in the .spec. (Download happens if the source doesn't appear on the local machine or the source archive is corrupted) 3. Configurable site seraching. Eg. since I'm based in South Africa, I would like to try to download from the avilable sites in the following search order: a. South Africa b. .org, .net, edu, USA (East Coast) c. other sites This will speed up my modem downloads :) To get this to work, we define a single source XML file in the spec that defines all the sources (and any number of mirrors for a specific source) required for a specific spec file. srcmgr is called in the %prep section to verfiy, download and unpack (in whichever order) as well as to apply the patches as defined in the XML specfication. And that is it. I'll be willing to supply some samples of the source XML definition (the replacement "source") if the requirement is there. I've got one or two (used for testing) lying around at home. Any ideas and comments will be appreciated: I'm sure the above is not bulletproof at this point in time. Greetings, Jaco |
|
From: Jaco G. <ja...@pu...> - 2002-05-14 07:06:28
|
Jaco Greeff wrote: > Will check these and add to cvs tonight :) > > Mike B wrote: > >> Updates and new files... I didn't get around to it last night some there seems to be problems withe some building of the bootstrap-rpm package on certain machines. (So I've been spending some time on this.) If some brain is willing to help here and give some suggestions, look at the lvr-support archives. (If you are not subscribed.) http://www.geocrawler.com/lists/3/SourceForge/20406/0/ Greetings, Jaco |
|
From: Jaco G. <ja...@pu...> - 2002-05-13 05:29:51
|
Make me wish I actually read e-mail over the weekend :) Will check these and add to cvs tonight :) Mike B wrote: > Updates and new files... > > -- > * Loftus Law: Some people manage by the book, even though they do not know > who wrotethe book or even which book it is. > |
|
From: Mike B <th...@if...> - 2002-05-11 00:18:43
|
Updates and new files... -- * Loftus Law: Some people manage by the book, even though they do not know who wrotethe book or even which book it is. |
|
From: Jaco G. <ja...@pu...> - 2002-04-29 07:05:25
|
Roy, Roy Bryant wrote: >Are these reports helpful? I'd love some feedback. If you prefer not to >receive these occasional error notices please let me know. Thanks for the info, will fix. Greetings, Jaco |
2 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
