On Tue, 15 May 2007, Aredridel wrote:
>
> > have 'packages/%{name}' containt (a) the spec file, (b) a 'files' subdir,
> > that
> > contains the traditional 'SOURCES' content and (c) any other files
> > containing
> > metadata. Off the top of my head -- the 'tag->revision' file we've
> > disc
> have 'packages/%{name}' containt (a) the spec file, (b) a 'files' subdir,
> that
> contains the traditional 'SOURCES' content and (c) any other files containing
> metadata. Off the top of my head -- the 'tag->revision' file we've discussed
> wrt to svn migration. And in the future -- any oth
On Tuesday 15 of May 2007 12:51:48 Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
> On 5/15/07, Mariusz Mazur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ok, after some talks on irc, this is how (the first version of) this
> > solution is going to look like:
> >
> > 'packages' module in our current CVS repo with a flat structure
> > u
On 5/15/07, Mariusz Mazur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, after some talks on irc, this is how (the first version of) this solution
> is going to look like:
>
> 'packages' module in our current CVS repo with a flat structure underneath
> consisting of package '%{name}'s. Like this: 'packages/glibc
Ok, after some talks on irc, this is how (the first version of) this solution
is going to look like:
'packages' module in our current CVS repo with a flat structure underneath
consisting of package '%{name}'s. Like this: 'packages/glibc'
or 'packages/kernel'.
The idea is also to force having s
