Zach Welch escreveu:
Actually, I think it hurts; it skips 0.2.0 in favor of SVN.
An important point of regular releases is to get users off of the
repository and using releases. Packagers are the first place that
should start. Which patches did you really need, which were committed
Zach Welch escreveu:
Please repost to the list, so I can provide help for the community
rather than personal support for you. :) I have an answer ready.
Done :)
This was a stupid mistake. I sometimes do that because most list answer
automáticaly back to the list.
Is this taboo (it is for
On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 15:37 -0300, Alain Mouette wrote:
[snip]
Could you explain which SVN version is the same as 0.2.0 ???
Is there something wrong with the archives that I posted ??? :)
Reading SVN-history I was thinking that it should be 2519, because 2520
is 0.2.1 ...
SVN is a little
On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 15:39 -0300, Alain Mouette wrote:
Zach Welch escreveu:
Please repost to the list, so I can provide help for the community
rather than personal support for you. :) I have an answer ready.
Done :)
This was a stupid mistake. I sometimes do that because most list
Hi,
just a quick notification, I uploaded a 0.2.0 package to Debian unstable
(well, sort of, it's actually r2529). So far all architectures seem to
build fine, didn't check for warnings though (-Werror is disabled in the
build).
https://buildd.debian.org/pkg.cgi?pkg=openocd
Hope that helps,
On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 04:28 +0200, Uwe Hermann wrote:
Hi,
just a quick notification, I uploaded a 0.2.0 package to Debian unstable
(well, sort of, it's actually r2529). So far all architectures seem to
build fine, didn't check for warnings though (-Werror is disabled in the
build).
