Are you there, Keith?
A week ago, on fink-devel, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Keith Conger [EMAIL PROTECTED] committed:
--- NEW FILE: m2crypto-python22.patch ---
*** ../old_m2crypto/setup.py Sun Jun 22 11:45:33 2003
--- ./setup.py Wed Aug 6 14:17:18 2003
[old]
! include_dirs =
On Feb 14, 2004, at 7:58 PM, Koen van der Drift wrote:
On Feb 14, 2004, at 5:59 PM, Ben Hines wrote:
Packages submitted to the tracker should be rejected if the .patch
files are not in unified diff format. That's our standard.
Where is this documented? I cannot find that not in the 'creating
James Gibbs wrote:
On Feb 14, 2004, at 7:58 PM, Koen van der Drift wrote:
On Feb 14, 2004, at 5:59 PM, Ben Hines wrote:
Packages submitted to the tracker should be rejected if the .patch
files are not in unified diff format. That's our standard.
Where is this documented? I cannot find that
Packages submitted to the tracker should be rejected if the .patch
files are not in unified diff format. That's our standard.
-Ben
On Feb 13, 2004, at 12:29 PM, Daniel Macks wrote:
That appears to be some hard-coded /sw. I don't think the validator
catches it, however...whoever wrote the check
Keith Conger [EMAIL PROTECTED] committed:
Update of /cvsroot/fink/dists/10.3/unstable/crypto/finkinfo
--- NEW FILE: m2crypto-python22.info ---
Patch: %f.patch
But...
--- NEW FILE: m2crypto-python22.patch ---
so patch should be %n.patch, no?
Also, while we're looking at the patch...
***
