| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
ICAL - why not cotinue to use it?ICAL - why not cotinue to use it?Posted Mar 9, 2004 22:36 UTC (Tue) by corbet (editor, #1)In reply to: ICAL - why not cotinue to use it? by subhasroy Parent article: A grumpy editor's calendar search I actually grabbed the source and tried to build it. Got through the first four or five roadblocks before deciding that, sometimes, you have to take the hint and move on to something that's actually maintained.
(Log in to post comments)
ICAL - why not cotinue to use it? Posted Mar 10, 2004 1:20 UTC (Wed) by clint (subscriber, #7076) [Link] The latest package in Debian was 2.2-9, but you can get an earlier incarnation at http://archive.debian.org/dists/slink/main/binary-i386/misc/ical_2.2-2.deb .There's always a possibility of reviving it.
ICAL - why not cotinue to use it? Posted Mar 23, 2004 1:11 UTC (Tue) by bayard (guest, #20385) [Link] I have gone almost exactly the same route as the Editor, and I haveconsidered (even tried, probably, I don't remember now) to use it as unpackaged from /usr/local. The trouble is it is a Tk app, and Tk keeps changing at a scary pace (ask the Debian Tk maintainer), so at some point it is almost guaranteed to break with the current Tk and require one that is no longer in Debian, if it has not happened already. In fact the reason why apt decided to remove it was probably it needed to get rid of the underlying Tk.
|
|
||||||||||||