David Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > And as far as bundled versions, it's the desire to *remove* a bundled > version that's apparently at issue. I'm not sure why this is > considered desirable, but apparently some folks feel strongly about > this.
Could someone please summarize what code is currently bundled with darcs that isn't darcs? I had the impression that most of it was "in house" code that had/has not been formalized into a separate libraries yet (e.g. an FFI for zlib, byte strings before they were librarified). To me, that's different from a bundled (convenience) copy, which is where you basically download libfoo's tarball, unpack it in your source tree, and then do "darcs rec -lam 'Install copy of libfoo 5.1'". _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
