Re: [Bug-gnubg] Source tarballs on gnubg.org

2008-01-03 Thread Achim Mueller
Hi folks, a Happy New Year to all of you ... * Christian Anthon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080102 20:46]: > There is no reason to keep more than a few tarballs in my opinion. People > with very specific needs are better of using cvs anyway. I didn't follow the list for a while, also I didn't take care

Re: [Bug-gnubg] Source tarballs on gnubg.org

2008-01-02 Thread Christian Anthon
There is no reason to keep more than a few tarballs in my opinion. People with very specific needs are better of using cvs anyway. Christian. On Jan 2, 2008 1:01 PM, Massimiliano Maini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jonathan Kinsey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 02/01/2008 12:42:16: > > > > Massim

Re: [Bug-gnubg] Source tarballs on gnubg.org

2008-01-02 Thread Massimiliano Maini
Jonathan Kinsey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 02/01/2008 12:42:16: > Massimiliano Maini wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > at the address http://www.gnubg.org/media/sources/ you will see that > > some tarballs are empty/broken: > > > > 20071128-20071204, 20080101 : size is 0

Re: [Bug-gnubg] Source tarballs on gnubg.org

2008-01-02 Thread Jonathan Kinsey
Massimiliano Maini wrote: > > Hi all, > > at the address http://www.gnubg.org/media/sources/ you will see that > some tarballs are empty/broken: > > 20071128-20071204, 20080101 : size is 0 > 20071220, 20071231 and 20080101: size is smaller > than e

[Bug-gnubg] Source tarballs on gnubg.org

2008-01-02 Thread Massimiliano Maini
Hi all, at the address http://www.gnubg.org/media/sources/ you will see that some tarballs are empty/broken: 20071128-20071204, 20080101 : size is 0 20071220, 20071231 and 20080101 : size is smaller than expected (archive is truncated) Any idea ? Running ou