On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Max Bowsher wrote:
> When a packager follows a pseudo-"Method 2" approach, using a home-grown
> script not based on generic-build-script, how closely must the naming and
> behaviour of the script follow the official template?
I don't think there is a particular set of require
When a packager follows a pseudo-"Method 2" approach, using a home-grown
script not based on generic-build-script, how closely must the naming and
behaviour of the script follow the official template?
What degree of automation is required in terms of setup?
Do we require that the included script
