Em 08-04-2010 01:57, Michael Jennings escreveu:
> On Wednesday, 07 April 2010, at 12:27:47 (+0100),
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>
I'm sorry, but that breaks the whole point of having clean software
installs.
>>>
>>> How, exactly?
>
> I notice that you did not answer this question.
On Wednesday, 07 April 2010, at 12:27:47 (+0100),
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> >> I'm sorry, but that breaks the whole point of having clean software
> >> installs.
> >
> > How, exactly?
I notice that you did not answer this question. Did you miss it, or
did you intentionally ignore it?
>
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> Again: I have no intention of treading on your toes, you're making it
> personal and I have more than once pointed out that there is nothing of
> the such.
I don't think anyone is trying to make it personal. You think that
adding HH
Em 06-04-2010 19:40, Michael Jennings escreveu:
> On Tuesday, 06 April 2010, at 14:38:36 (+0100),
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry, but that breaks the whole point of having clean software
>> installs.
>
> How, exactly?
>
>> It's definitely *not* a sane (in terms of package DB) re
On Tuesday, 06 April 2010, at 14:38:36 (+0100),
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> I'm sorry, but that breaks the whole point of having clean software
> installs.
How, exactly?
> It's definitely *not* a sane (in terms of package DB) replacement to the
> proper usage of the release field.
There is
Em 05-04-2010 18:35, Michael Jennings escreveu:
> On Saturday, 03 April 2010, at 20:10:43 (+0100),
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>
>> 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 installati
On Saturday, 03 April 2010, at 20:10:43 (+0100),
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> 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
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 MMDD format, but not your variation).
It's not unnecessar
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 MMDD format, but not your variation).
Michael
--
Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX) http://www.kainx.org/
Linux Serv
Hi,
Most (if not all) rpm specs define the following:
Release: 0.%(date '+%Y%m%d')
I propose to change this to:
Release: 0.%(date '+%Y%m%d%H%M')
The reasoning is:
* I like to install in rpms compiled from trunk
* rpms provide a nice and cleaner build environment with dep management
* if one
10 matches
Mail list logo
