Hi!
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 07:07:54PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>
> I'm totally fine with patches being checked in after there's some
> consensus that they are what we want. This applies to this easy one, but
> likewise applies to those that Sergio has posted, for example.
Sounds good!
>
Hello!
I'm sorry for my absence at the moment (well, at the moment...).
I'm totally fine with patches being checked in after there's some
consensus that they are what we want. This applies to this easy one, but
likewise applies to those that Sergio has posted, for example.
On Wed, May 26, 201
Hi,
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:25:49AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 10:49:16AM +0200, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote:
>
> > Emilio reported that `fakeroot --version' (fakeroot-hurd in Debian)
> > prints out `STANDARD_HURD_VERSION_uptime_' instead of its version. The
Hi,
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 10:49:16AM +0200, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote:
> Emilio reported that `fakeroot --version' (fakeroot-hurd in Debian)
> prints out `STANDARD_HURD_VERSION_uptime_' instead of its version. The
> bug is due to a faulty make rule which depends on the original sed
> script whi
Hi,
Emilio reported that `fakeroot --version' (fakeroot-hurd in Debian)
prints out `STANDARD_HURD_VERSION_uptime_' instead of its version.
The bug is due to a faulty make rule which depends on the original
sed script which inserted the correct version but was later inlined
into Makeconf itself (ba
