Hey, It may not be funny, but it's a classic :-) But no, no that's fair enough.
On 14/03/2014, Daniel Micay wrote:
> On 14/03/14 03:16 AM, David Phillips wrote:
>> Please excuse me if this isn't the right list for this (I feel
>> confident it is), but is there any reason why is it that something
On 14/03/14 03:16 AM, David Phillips wrote:
> Please excuse me if this isn't the right list for this (I feel
> confident it is), but is there any reason why is it that something
> that's as reasonably update- and maintenance-free as
> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/sl not in community yet? It's
Ahh, okay, that makes sense. I thought that would be the case -- these
guys 'n' gals are volunteers after all.
On 14/03/2014, Karol Blazewicz wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 8:16 AM, David Phillips
> wrote:
>> Please excuse me if this isn't the right list for this (I feel
>> confident it is), b
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 8:16 AM, David Phillips wrote:
> Please excuse me if this isn't the right list for this (I feel
> confident it is), but is there any reason why is it that something
> that's as reasonably update- and maintenance-free as
> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/sl not in communit
Please excuse me if this isn't the right list for this (I feel
confident it is), but is there any reason why is it that something
that's as reasonably update- and maintenance-free as
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/sl not in community yet? It's got
over three hundred votes; is there a reason for
