Em 03-04-2010 19:18, Michael Jennings escreveu: > On Wednesday, 31 March 2010, at 00:32:53 (+0100), > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > >> What do you think? > > I think it's unnecessary and non-standard (most people easily > recognize YYYYMMDD format, but not your variation).
It's not unnecessary, quite the contrary if you like clean rpm installations and are doing some work on a library requiring more than once a day installations. I'm interested in knowing why you think this is not a problem, if you have a better way to do it, please teach me. I'd also bet that 100% of people bright enough to recognize YYYYMMDD instantly will recognize YYYYMMDDHHMM (it's even one of the instantly recognized methods for setting the date in multiple implementations of this command). Since I have commit rights and have some RPM spec knowledge, instead of whining about an issue I put up a *proposal* to fix something that *is* an issue to me. I did this way instead of "just doing it" because from the last commits I did on some specs I saw that you seemed a bit beefed up about it and I don't want to tread on your toes. If you're worried about getting competition on rpm spec maintenance, then please don't! As that is certainly not my intention. :) I just need the specs to: a) work b) and be useful This may not be an issue for you. That's perfectly fine! Perhaps I'm the only one who prefers to install RPMs rather than just use make install and this is a new need, can you please consider that? :) Best, Rui ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
