On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 5:58 AM, Dan McGeed...@archlinux.org wrote:
OK, that last one looks a bit silly with the paths at the top, doesn't it. Any
ideas? I'd be fine with showing the 0 errors lines all the time, it would just
require some grep foo for people to screen those out. That way, you
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Nagy Gaborng...@bibl.u-szeged.hu wrote:
From e9d1686e5e54bff2aad12820e335c10603b307db Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nagy Gabor ng...@bibl.u-szeged.hu
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:08:28 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] API changes between 3.2 and 3.3
Signed-off-by: Nagy
This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. It was
generated because a ref change was pushed to the repository containing
the project The official pacman repository.
The branch, master has been updated
via 1d19f0896ccc1560a7e2f5b93cfe095b4aefe84a (commit)
via
OK, here we go.
We have two basic lists to chop through. One is here:
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pacman_Roadmap#3.3_Final_Release_Plans.
Of course, Xavier blew my (short) list away and tried to sneak in a
much longer list. Sorry, but this is not all getting in if we are
releasing before
Dan McGee wrote:
* FS#12772, makepkg default integrity check. I'm fine with changing it
in the pacman source code, the Arch decision can be postponed, but
thoughts?
I am fine with leaving as it is in the pacman source makepkg.conf. Any
distro using pacman should ship thier own custom
