On 03/23/2017 08:22 PM, Gleb Fotengauer-Malinovskiy wrote:
It can be dropped because this code was never actually enabled.
Actually, this implementation *surely* never ever compiled.
Signed-off-by: Gleb Fotengauer-Malinovskiy
After spending a few minutes looking at what
On 03/24/2017 11:02 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On 03/23/2017 10:48 PM, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 03:08:57PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Gleb Fotengauer-Malinovskiy wrote:
It can be dropped because this code was never actually enabled.
On 03/23/2017 09:08 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Gleb Fotengauer-Malinovskiy
wrote:
It can be dropped because this code was never actually enabled.
Actually, this implementation *surely* never ever compiled.
Are you sure of this? Because this
On 03/23/2017 10:48 PM, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 03:08:57PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Gleb Fotengauer-Malinovskiy wrote:
It can be dropped because this code was never actually enabled.
Actually, this implementation *surely* never ever
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 03:08:57PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Gleb Fotengauer-Malinovskiy wrote:
> > It can be dropped because this code was never actually enabled.
> > Actually, this implementation *surely* never ever compiled.
>
> Are you sure of this? Because
It can be dropped because this code was never actually enabled.
Actually, this implementation *surely* never ever compiled.
Signed-off-by: Gleb Fotengauer-Malinovskiy
---
misc/Makefile.am| 1 -
misc/rpmxprogname.c | 33 -