On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 09:29:06 +0100
"Yury V. Zaytsev" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 11:51 -0500, MK wrote:
> > was less true 5-10 years ago. I installed Fedora 10-64 in January and
> > (at least at that time) there was not even an .rpm package available
> > -- I had to build from source, which I tend to do anyway, so big deal.
> This is NOT true:
> The date it became available is 30-Oct-2008, which means that if you
> couldn't install it from base in January 2009, you clearly did something
Okay! Evidentally I didn't look hard enough. But it was not then (and I
imagine is not now) part of the standard or "base" disto. Which is to say, I
have an adulterated, direct from redhat, 2 DVD set right here, (ie. an 8gb
"base" repository) which is what you get when you download "Fedora 10-64", and
mc *is not* part of that.
Probably I didn't look around the web at all, since I *prefer* building stuff
like this from source anyway. But it had been a few years since I had
installed a linux system, and I distinctly remember, like Chris Glur, being
*shocked* that mc was not part of the default/base install...clearly this has
blown slightly out of proportion in my mind ;)
Anyway, I'm not blaming redhat or debian or anyone for that.
BTW, mc is one of my very favourite pieces of software of all time, which I use
constantly on a daily basis. So thanks much to the developers and maintainers
for keeping it alive and well!
MK <[email protected]>
Mc mailing list