Hello,
I am a subscriber of this list, but there is no post delevered in my
account. I also get a automake bounce notice, as
Your membership in the mailing list Automake has been disabled due to
excessive bounces ...
I tried to reply the mail as directed on the same day, but got:
- Results:
Hello Rudra,
Rudra Banerjee wrote:
I am a subscriber of this list, but there is no post delevered in my
account. I also get a automake bounce notice, as
Your membership in the mailing list Automake has been disabled due to
excessive bounces ...
I tried to reply the mail as directed on the
* Eric Dorland (e...@debian.org) wrote:
Hi Stefano,
I was just getting around to packaging this for Debian and I have a
question. Given the new versioning scheme shouldn't the APIVERSION (as
defined in configure.ac) be 1.13 and not 1.14? Or more precisely, does
it make sense for the binary
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Eric Dorland e...@debian.org wrote:
Previously I would upgrade the automake package to the latest version
and add a new binary package for the previous version. So, for
example, if automake was at version 1.10 and 1.11 was released
upstream I would update the
* Dan Kegel (d...@kegel.com) wrote:
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Eric Dorland e...@debian.org wrote:
Previously I would upgrade the automake package to the latest version
and add a new binary package for the previous version. So, for
example, if automake was at version 1.10 and 1.11 was
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Eric Dorland e...@debian.org wrote:
That sounds kind of risky, promises of compatibility notwithstanding.
Can you elaborate why?
No. I'm just being paranoid. But there is good precedent for
paranoia being the right setting in matters of backwards
