On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:00:06 +0530, Huzaifa wrote:
> Hi,
> So taking into consideration all the feed back , here are the changes done:
>
> - - bump soname in the code from 1.2.11 to 1.2.12
Please, with further comments on this package let's limit ourselves to one
place only. _Eiter_ the review
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
So taking into consideration all the feed back , here are the changes done:
- - bump soname in the code from 1.2.11 to 1.2.12
- - In the srpm, libtar-ng now obsoletes libtar, so that the conflicts are
resolved.
- - Tar ball is bz2 and not gzip to
Huzaifa Sidhpurwala wrote:
> I have forked libtar as libtar-ng, because the upstream does not have
> time to maintain it anymore.
>
> Here is the bz:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=546169
>
> Now the question is what is a private fork?
> Am i wrong in forking it and packaging in fe
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:43:16 +0530, Rahul wrote:
> On 12/11/2009 04:38 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:14:40 +0530, Rahul wrote:
> >
> >> On 12/11/2009 03:56 PM, Florian Festi wrote:
> >>> Without knowing the history:
> >>>
> >>> Best solution would be to ask former upstrea
On 12/11/2009 04:38 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:14:40 +0530, Rahul wrote:
>
>> On 12/11/2009 03:56 PM, Florian Festi wrote:
>>> Without knowing the history:
>>>
>>> Best solution would be to ask former upstream for permission to continue
>>> the project under its original
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 16:14 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 12/11/2009 03:56 PM, Florian Festi wrote:
> > Without knowing the history:
> >
> > Best solution would be to ask former upstream for permission to continue
> > the project under its original name
>
> That was already denied
>
> https
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:14:40 +0530, Rahul wrote:
> On 12/11/2009 03:56 PM, Florian Festi wrote:
> > Without knowing the history:
> >
> > Best solution would be to ask former upstream for permission to continue
> > the project under its original name
>
> That was already denied
>
> https://list
On 12/11/2009 03:56 PM, Florian Festi wrote:
> Without knowing the history:
>
> Best solution would be to ask former upstream for permission to continue
> the project under its original name
That was already denied
https://lists.feep.net:8080/pipermail/libtar/2009-May/000259.html
Rahul
--
fe
Without knowing the history:
Best solution would be to ask former upstream for permission to continue
the project under its original name and may be even to forward the old
mailing list and web page the to new ones.
But I am not sure if you are living the the best of all possible worlds...
F
On 12/11/2009 02:07 PM, Huzaifa Sidhpurwala wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
> I have forked libtar as libtar-ng, because the upstream does not have
> time to maintain it anymore.
>
> Here is the bz:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=546169
>
> Now
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:07:29 +0530, Huzaifa wrote:
> I have forked libtar as libtar-ng, because the upstream does not have
> time to maintain it anymore.
>
> Here is the bz:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=546169
>
> Now the question is what is a private fork?
> Am i wrong in forki
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I have forked libtar as libtar-ng, because the upstream does not have
time to maintain it anymore.
Here is the bz:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=546169
Now the question is what is a private fork?
Am i wrong in forking it and packag
12 matches
Mail list logo
