On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 12:30:47PM -, Alec Leamas wrote:
> testing this on-line reply thing...
>
> I guess the java tools are either scripts or java code i. e.,
> architecture-independent. I just presume Rich's tools are compiled code which
> cannot live in /usr/share for that reason.
testing this on-line reply thing...
I guess the java tools are either scripts or java code i. e.,
architecture-independent. I just presume Rich's tools are compiled code which
cannot live in /usr/share for that reason. But... to presume is a bad habit.
Cheers!
--alec
--
devel mailing list
On 10/06/16 14:01, Sérgio Basto wrote:
(3) Rename them and put them in %{_bindir}. This is technically
difficult, because the binaries have manual pages which would all
have
to be patched to refer to the new names.
Rich.
What if you rename them, and instead of patching the manpages
On Qui, 2016-06-09 at 12:59 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> I maintain a package which comes with some benchmarking tools. I
> would like to package these, but they have very generic names like
> "boot-benchmark", "analysis". Also the tools are very specialized --
> you would only want them
Hi Rich.
On 9 June 2016 at 12:59, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> I maintain a package which comes with some benchmarking tools. I
> would like to package these, but they have very generic names like
> "boot-benchmark", "analysis". Also the tools are very specialized --
> you
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> I maintain a package which comes with some benchmarking tools. I
> would like to package these, but they have very generic names like
> "boot-benchmark", "analysis". Also the tools are very specialized --
> you
I maintain a package which comes with some benchmarking tools. I
would like to package these, but they have very generic names like
"boot-benchmark", "analysis". Also the tools are very specialized --
you would only want them if you already know you need them.
I wonder if people have opinions