Other users have requested this conversation stop
or move offline. Some persons did mail
me offline in the same vein and I responded
essentially to say I could see no point
in continuing I'm right, you are wrong
games.
Please stop this conversation. That I differ from
the perspective below is
At 6:20 PM +0100 2005-06-15, Andy Heath wrote:
Many open source software products provide small text
installation documentation files that explain what
is needed for particular platforms - for example
the XFree86 distributions used to (dunno if they
still do). The answer come look over
At 10:25 AM +0100 2005-06-15, Andy Heath wrote:
Its customary when you interact with a community to learn
their language not expect them to learn yours.
What you suggest doesn't satisfy the requirement
I stated.
If you're a RedHat user, then talking about SRPMs is precisely
the
I acknowledge Redhat do a good job with FHS and
do interface with the community.
Is there guidance in the standard mailman distributions
on how to build for FC starting with a tar.gz ?
According to their particular filesystem structure? No. That is
something that RedHat would
Andy == Andy Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andy A plea to Redhat - if you are going to purloin mailman and
Andy do it with FHS then a file that accompanies the mailman
Andy distribution that explains how to do a manual build that
Andy conforms to the way RH does it would be
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Andy == Andy Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andy A plea to Redhat - if you are going to purloin mailman and
Andy do it with FHS then a file that accompanies the mailman
Andy distribution that explains how to do a manual build that
Andy conforms
On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 08:05 +0100, Andy Heath wrote:
A plea to Redhat - if you are going to purloin
mailman and do it with FHS then a file that
accompanies the mailman distribution that explains
how to do a manual build that conforms to the way
RH does it would be very useful - a how to
John Dennis wrote:
On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 08:05 +0100, Andy Heath wrote:
A plea to Redhat - if you are going to purloin
mailman and do it with FHS then a file that
accompanies the mailman distribution that explains
how to do a manual build that conforms to the way
RH does it would be very
--On June 15, 2005 6:20:00 PM +0100 Andy Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I differ from your view.
I think you've made your position clear. John's made his position clear.
How about if the two of you take the rest of this discussion offline?
--
Steve Burling
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, Steve Burling wrote:
--On June 15, 2005 6:20:00 PM +0100 Andy Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I differ from your view.
I think you've made your position clear. John's made his position clear.
How about if the two of you take the rest of this discussion offline?
Best
Andy Heath wrote:
If the mailman developer community adopts the FHS for
mailman then that's a different story entirely and
I would follow without complaint.
In fairness to John Dennis, he did raise these issues for discussion
last year on the Mailman-Developers list. See threads at
Mark Sapiro wrote:
Andy Heath wrote:
If the mailman developer community adopts the FHS for
mailman then that's a different story entirely and
I would follow without complaint.
In fairness to John Dennis, he did raise these issues for discussion
last year on the Mailman-Developers list.
On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 21:38 +0100, Andy Heath wrote:
Is there guidance in the standard mailman distributions
on how to build for FC starting with a tar.gz ?
To the best of my knowledge the install document provided in the tar
ball applies equally well to Fedora thus it is not necessary to have
At 9:38 PM +0100 2005-06-14, Andy Heath wrote:
The issue it raises is maintenance. If FC does
it differently then it means users are
dependent on FC providing updated packages
or working hard to manually do that mapping
with updated code.
Effectively it becomes an FC package not
a
14 matches
Mail list logo
