On Saturday 10 December 2005 18:58, AltGrendel wrote:
> Timo Neuvonen wrote:
> >>So, in conclusion I guess what I'm saying is, that so long as
> >>nothing you do would break an existing installation then by all
> >>means, take the choice which requires the least amount of
> >>effort on your part a
Timo Neuvonen wrote:
So, in conclusion I guess what I'm saying is, that so long as
nothing you do would break an existing installation then by all
means, take the choice which requires the least amount of
effort on your part and still makes some sense as
far as version numbers are concerned.
A
On Friday 09 December 2005 11:40, Timo Neuvonen wrote:
> > Scott is, unfortunately on a rather long assignment away from home, so
> > for the moment, there won't be any binary rpms. However, I have
> > release a source rpm for version 1.38.2 (and will do so for any new
> > release). Using this, y
> Scott is, unfortunately on a rather long assignment away from home, so
> for the moment, there won't be any binary rpms. However, I have
> release a source rpm for version 1.38.2 (and will do so for any new
> release). Using this, you can rather easily build your own rpms
> on any system. For
On Thursday 08 December 2005 21:26, Timo Neuvonen wrote:
> > So, in conclusion I guess what I'm saying is, that so long as
> > nothing you do would break an existing installation then by all
> > means, take the choice which requires the least amount of
> > effort on your part and still makes some
> So, in conclusion I guess what I'm saying is, that so long as
> nothing you do would break an existing installation then by all
> means, take the choice which requires the least amount of
> effort on your part and still makes some sense as
> far as version numbers are concerned.
>
> And, thanks
