Felipe Contreras writes:
> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 7:41 AM, David Bremner wrote:
>
>> At this point we wait for somebody (else) with Fedora expertise to
>> review the patches.
>
> Like who? I though the reason these were never updated is that there
> wasn't anybody else.
Hmm. Somehow I missed T
Felipe Contreras writes:
> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 7:41 AM, David Bremner wrote:
>
>> At this point we wait for somebody (else) with Fedora expertise to
>> review the patches.
>
> Like who? I though the reason these were never updated is that there
> wasn't anybody else.
Hmm. Somehow I missed T
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 7:41 AM, David Bremner wrote:
> At this point we wait for somebody (else) with Fedora expertise to
> review the patches.
Like who? I though the reason these were never updated is that there
wasn't anybody else.
--
Felipe Contreras
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 7:41 AM, David Bremner wrote:
> At this point we wait for somebody (else) with Fedora expertise to
> review the patches.
Like who? I though the reason these were never updated is that there
wasn't anybody else.
--
Felipe Contreras
___
On Sun, Apr 28 2013, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It doesn't seem the spec file is properly maintained, it should be much better
> now, closer to Fedora's one, and with support for Ruby bindings.
>
> Felipe Contreras (8):
> packaging: fedora: update
> packaging: fedora: remove irrelevant
Felipe Contreras writes:
> On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 4:52 AM, Felipe Contreras
> wrote:
>
>> It doesn't seem the spec file is properly maintained, it should be much
>> better
>> now, closer to Fedora's one, and with support for Ruby bindings.
>
> What about these?
>
Hi Felipe
At this point we w
Felipe Contreras writes:
> On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 4:52 AM, Felipe Contreras
> wrote:
>
>> It doesn't seem the spec file is properly maintained, it should be much
>> better
>> now, closer to Fedora's one, and with support for Ruby bindings.
>
> What about these?
>
Hi Felipe
At this point we w
On Sun, Apr 28 2013, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It doesn't seem the spec file is properly maintained, it should be much better
> now, closer to Fedora's one, and with support for Ruby bindings.
>
> Felipe Contreras (8):
> packaging: fedora: update
> packaging: fedora: remove irrelevant
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 4:52 AM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> It doesn't seem the spec file is properly maintained, it should be much better
> now, closer to Fedora's one, and with support for Ruby bindings.
What about these?
--
Felipe Contreras
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 4:52 AM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> It doesn't seem the spec file is properly maintained, it should be much better
> now, closer to Fedora's one, and with support for Ruby bindings.
What about these?
--
Felipe Contreras
___
not
Hi,
It doesn't seem the spec file is properly maintained, it should be much better
now, closer to Fedora's one, and with support for Ruby bindings.
Felipe Contreras (8):
packaging: fedora: update
packaging: fedora: remove irrelevant stuff
packaging: fedora: trivial cleanups
packaging: fed
Hi,
It doesn't seem the spec file is properly maintained, it should be much better
now, closer to Fedora's one, and with support for Ruby bindings.
Felipe Contreras (8):
packaging: fedora: update
packaging: fedora: remove irrelevant stuff
packaging: fedora: trivial cleanups
packaging: fed
12 matches
Mail list logo