On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 15:39 -0300, Alain Mouette wrote:
> Zach Welch escreveu:
> >
> > Please repost to the list, so I can provide help for the community
> > rather than personal support for you. :) I have an answer ready.
>
> Done :)
>
> This was a stupid mistake. I sometimes do that because m
On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 15:37 -0300, Alain Mouette wrote:
[snip]
> Could you explain which SVN version is the same as 0.2.0 ???
Is there something wrong with the archives that I posted ??? :)
> Reading SVN-history I was thinking that it should be 2519, because 2520
> is 0.2.1 ...
SVN is a little s
Zach Welch escreveu:
>
> Please repost to the list, so I can provide help for the community
> rather than personal support for you. :) I have an answer ready.
Done :)
This was a stupid mistake. I sometimes do that because most list answer
automáticaly back to the list.
Is this taboo (it is f
Zach Welch escreveu:
> Actually, I think it hurts; it skips 0.2.0 in favor of SVN.
> An important point of regular releases is to get users off of the
> repository and using releases. Packagers are the first place that
> should start. Which patches did you really need, which were committed
> b
On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 04:28 +0200, Uwe Hermann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> just a quick notification, I uploaded a 0.2.0 package to Debian unstable
> (well, sort of, it's actually r2529). So far all architectures seem to
> build fine, didn't check for warnings though (-Werror is disabled in the
> build).
>
Hi,
just a quick notification, I uploaded a 0.2.0 package to Debian unstable
(well, sort of, it's actually r2529). So far all architectures seem to
build fine, didn't check for warnings though (-Werror is disabled in the
build).
https://buildd.debian.org/pkg.cgi?pkg=openocd
Hope that helps, Uwe
