On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Nathan O wrote:

On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:23 AM, Nathan O wrote:

...

Should libicq2000 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=11337 be deleted, the package gives that it can't find libsigc++ though it is installed. I did some research and it is said that libicq2000 will not work with the libsigc++-2. I am thinking that you are not able to install libsigc++ and libsigc++-2. If it is to be deleted, package ickle http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=11336 should be deleted because it depends on libicq2000. Not sure what to do in this aspect.

Thanks

Or the better question may be, can libsigc++-2 and libsigc++ be "friendly" together? I am betting no, but if it can then it wouldn't need to be deleted(the above mention packages)

Just noticed, seems that libsigcplusplus is the same as libsigcpp1.2 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=11468

Nathan O wrote:

...

On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:23 AM, Nathan O wrote:

...

Should libicq2000 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=11337 be deleted, the package gives that it can't find libsigc++ though it is installed. I did some research and it is said that libicq2000 will not work with the libsigc++-2. I am thinking that you are not able to install libsigc++ and libsigc++-2. If it is to be deleted, package ickle http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=11336 should be deleted because it depends on libicq2000. Not sure what to do in this aspect.

Thanks

Or the better question may be, can libsigc++-2 and libsigc++ be "friendly" together? I am betting no, but if it can then it wouldn't need to be deleted(the above mention packages)

You should be able to have both without problem, that's why they have different names (just like gtk 1/2/3).

-- Rémy.

Ok just wanted to make sure. I think libsigcplusplus http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=11338 should be deleted, it seems

On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 3:10 AM, Rémy Oudompheng wrote: that http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=11336 is the same