Re: Bad date in 1.9.xx SPEC files

2020-02-15 Thread Willy Tarreau
Hi Steven, On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 07:18:44PM +, Blair, Steven wrote: > Willy, > > The problem is the ancient version that is supplied, currently 1.5.18. We > would find some of the 2.x useful but just don't have the time to fool with > manually updating .spec files. > Since we are a

Re: Bad date in 1.9.xx SPEC files

2020-02-14 Thread Blair, Steven
Willy, The problem is the ancient version that is supplied, currently 1.5.18. We would find some of the 2.x useful but just don't have the time to fool with manually updating .spec files. Since we are a research institute and use open source to keep our costs low, we have little room to

Re: Bad date in 1.9.xx SPEC files

2020-02-13 Thread Willy Tarreau
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 05:10:54PM +, Blair, Steven wrote: > This problem has existed for several iterations and should be obvious to a > casual reviewer. Please fix it. > I really do not understand why the .spec file was removed in 2.x versions, > but if it is intended for 1.9.x, it should

Re: Bad date in 1.9.xx SPEC files

2020-02-13 Thread Arnall
Le 13/02/2020 à 18:10, Blair, Steven a écrit : This problem has existed for several iterations and should be obvious to a casual reviewer. Please fix it. I really do not understand why the .spec file was removed in 2.x versions, but if it is intended for 1.9.x, it should at least work.