Yes, I know that they're simple. It's just for unification.
Or maybe it'll be enough to add 'lwp' section for package (which will be
stored in .lwp tarball)?
06.12.2014 15:13, Erich Titl пишет:
> Hi Andrew
>
> Am 06.12.2014 um 12:47 schrieb Andrew:
>> Hi.
>> Maybe we should add 'lwp' buildtool pa
Hi Folks especially the git advocates
I am struggling again, after a few changes in my config branch I am
faced with the following.
mega@leafbuilder:~/leaf/devel/bering-uclibc$ git commit
[config 0536506] A big batch of small changes in the webconf package.
Lots of adaptions to a slighttly more m
Hi Andrew
Am 06.12.2014 um 12:47 schrieb Andrew:
> Hi.
> Maybe we should add 'lwp' buildtool package type for lwp like for initrd?
They are really much simpler, no need to worry, but a generic build
process would be nice.
cheers
Erich
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Hi.
Maybe we should add 'lwp' buildtool package type for lwp like for initrd?
06.12.2014 13:41, Erich Titl пишет:
> Hi KP
>
> Am 06.12.2014 um 09:13 schrieb kp kirchdoerfer:
>> Hi Erich;
>>
>> Am Freitag, 5. Dezember 2014, 22:13:01 schrieb Erich Titl:
>>> Hi KP
>>>
>>> I have not been able to unde
Hi KP
Am 06.12.2014 um 09:13 schrieb kp kirchdoerfer:
> Hi Erich;
>
> Am Freitag, 5. Dezember 2014, 22:13:01 schrieb Erich Titl:
>> Hi KP
>>
>> I have not been able to understand why the lwp generation is so
>> different in every aspect from the generation of 'normal' packages.
>> Where is the lo
Hi Erich;
Am Freitag, 5. Dezember 2014, 22:13:01 schrieb Erich Titl:
> Hi KP
>
> I have not been able to understand why the lwp generation is so
> different in every aspect from the generation of 'normal' packages.
> Where is the logic for the lwp generation hidden, it definitely does not
> have
