> On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Max Bowsher wrote:
>
>> I do think that a version number should uniquely identify a version,
>> though. A possibility that was not considered last time this was
>> discussed is to start the reviewing at -0.1, going -0.2, -0.3, etc.,
>> and then bump to -1 on release.
>>
>> Fe
On Tue, Dec 31, 2002 at 11:25:25AM +0800, Dean Scarff wrote:
> The .ps was generated from a perl script that exited without
> error. The build works on debian with perl 5.8.0 and GNU Ghostscript
> 7.05. I'm using those same versions of each on cywin.
Compare the Postscript file that was produced
From: Dario Alcocer
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 18:35:28 -0800
> What problems exactly are you having with Ghostscript?
> I'll assume that you're referring to the Cygwin version of Ghostscript.
They may not be a problem with ghostscript at all, contrary to what I said before. It
may actua
- Original Message -
From: Pavel Tsekov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 11:11:59 +0100 (CET)
> On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Dean Scarff wrote:
>
> > Done, the new binary package nasm-0.98.35-2 has everything except the pdf (due to
>ghostscript problems as I mentioned elsewhere).
On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 01:18:05PM +0800, Dean Scarff wrote:
> Done, the new binary package nasm-0.98.35-2 has everything except
> the pdf (due to ghostscript problems as I mentioned elsewhere).
What problems exactly are you having with Ghostscript? I'll assume
that you're referring to the Cygwin
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Max Bowsher wrote:
> I do think that a version number should uniquely identify a version, though.
> A possibility that was not considered last time this was discussed is to
> start the reviewing at -0.1, going -0.2, -0.3, etc., and then bump to -1 on
> release.
>
> Feel free
Pavel Tsekov wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Max Bowsher wrote:
>
>>> Btw, please, do not update the cygwin specific part of the package
>>> version number when releasing an updated version in the process of
>>> reviewing.
>>
>> Didn't the last discussion on this agree on *DO* update the
>> Cygwin-sp
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Max Bowsher wrote:
> > Btw, please, do not update the cygwin specific part of the package
> > version number when releasing an updated version in the process of
> > reviewing.
>
> Didn't the last discussion on this agree on *DO* update the Cygwin-specific
> release number dur
Pavel Tsekov wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Dean Scarff wrote:
>
>> Done, the new binary package nasm-0.98.35-2 has everything except
>> the pdf (due to ghostscript problems as I mentioned elsewhere).
>> Updated files are here:
>>
>> http://proud-x.com/~p00ya/cygwin-apps/nasm/setup.hint
>> http://pr
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Dean Scarff wrote:
> Done, the new binary package nasm-0.98.35-2 has everything except the pdf (due to
>ghostscript problems as I mentioned elsewhere). Updated files are here:
>
> http://proud-x.com/~p00ya/cygwin-apps/nasm/setup.hint
> http://proud-x.com/~p00ya/cygwin-apps/
- Original Message -
From: Pavel Tsekov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 18:37:20 +0100 (CET)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [nasm packaging review] was Re: Pending packages status
> On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
>
> > 4. nasm
> >
- Original Message -
From: Joshua Daniel Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 11:02:09 -0800 (PST)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [nasm packaging review] was Re: Pending packages status
> ...
> An alternative would be to have a separate nasm-doc pack
--- Pavel Tsekov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, nasm has a very complete documentation with a lot
> of examples and available in several differen output formats (html,
> info, pdf). So, I think including one the .info files in the binary
> package along with the man pages is a good idea a
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
> 4. nasm
>
> version: 0.98.35-1
> status : not reviewed
I've reviewed the packaging of nasm and it seems to be OK. The only
thing that seems to be missing is the documentation. The documentation
provided by the binary package includes only the man page
14 matches
Mail list logo
