[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 2.9.5 and 2.1.73
From: |
John W. Eaton |
Subject: |
Re: 2.9.5 and 2.1.73 |
Date: |
Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:58:54 -0500 |
On 16-Mar-2006, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
| * John W. Eaton <address@hidden> [2006-03-14 11:50]:
|
| > I'd like to make a new set of snapshots soon (this week, if
| > possible). Are there any outstanding bugs that you think must be
| > fixed before I do that?
|
| I would like to see the patches applied to the Debian package integrated in
| new releases:
|
|
http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-octave/trunk/packages/octave/debian/patches/?rev=0&sc=0
|
| I think that most of them were taken from CVS or from messages sent to
| the mailing lists.
50_g++4.1.dpatch
50_glpk-sparse.dpatch
50_inferior-octave-resync-dirs.dpatch
50_install-liboctinterp.dpatch
50_octave-mod-bind-m-bs-2.9.dpatch
I think these have all been applied to the 2.9.x branch.
50_mkoctfile.1-no-negative.dpatch
I don't recall seeing anything about this one, so if you think it
needs to be applied, can you please forward the report(s) that
resulted in the patch?
50_octave-value-list-resize-2.9.dpatch
I don't plan to make this change since I think we determined that the
problem was due to a compiler bug, and I think that has since been
fixed.
70_octave-mod-honor-auto-indent.dpatch
The code in the current octave-mod.el file seems different now, so I
don't know whether this patch is still needed.
I didn't check the 2.1 branch. If you think it is important to
include any of these, then please check the 2.1.x branch of the cvs
archive (the tag is ss-2-1-63-patches) and let me know whether they
are needed.
jwe
Re: 2.9.5 and 2.1.73, Bill Denney, 2006/03/14
Re: 2.9.5 and 2.1.73, David Bateman, 2006/03/14
Message not available
- Re: 2.9.5 and 2.1.73,
John W. Eaton <=
Re: 2.9.5 and 2.1.73, Colin Ingram, 2006/03/23
Re: 2.9.5 and 2.1.73, David Bateman, 2006/03/14
Re: 2.9.5 and 2.1.73, David Bateman, 2006/03/14
Re: 2.9.5 and 2.1.73, David Bateman, 2006/03/14