On 13-01-06 06:02 PM, Peter Hutterer wrote:
On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 04:22:05PM -0500, Gaetan Nadon wrote:
On 13-01-03 10:18 PM, Peter Hutterer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 03:55:49PM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
On 01/ 3/13 03:38 PM, Peter Hutterer wrote:
is there any particular
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 09:38:02 +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
is there any particular reason we're still generating gz and bzip2? one
should be enough, isn't it?
I'm still using the gz tarballs, so I'd like to keep them if it's not
too much trouble.
Cheers,
Julien
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13-01-03 10:18 PM, Peter Hutterer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 03:55:49PM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
On 01/ 3/13 03:38 PM, Peter Hutterer wrote:
is there any particular reason we're still generating gz and bzip2?
Because we're not hip
On 01/ 3/13 03:38 PM, Peter Hutterer wrote:
is there any particular reason we're still generating gz and bzip2?
Because we're not hip enough to have replaced gz with xz like all the cool kids?
Or because updating the automake flags in 200+ configure.ac scripts is not fun.
--
-Alan
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 03:55:49PM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
On 01/ 3/13 03:38 PM, Peter Hutterer wrote:
is there any particular reason we're still generating gz and bzip2?
Because we're not hip enough to have replaced gz with xz like all the cool
kids?
Or because updating the
