Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> On 1/11/07, Michael Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 06:51:08PM -, Paul Cager wrote:
>> > Regarding the packaging of the new upstream version of checkstyle.
>> As it
>> > is a library, should I rename the binary package to
>> libcheckstyle-java,
On 1/11/07, Michael Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 06:51:08PM -, Paul Cager wrote:
> Regarding the packaging of the new upstream version of checkstyle. As it
> is a library, should I rename the binary package to libcheckstyle-java, or
> would this cause far too many p
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 06:51:08PM -, Paul Cager wrote:
> Regarding the packaging of the new upstream version of checkstyle. As it
> is a library, should I rename the binary package to libcheckstyle-java, or
> would this cause far too many problems?
We discussed this specific case a long time
Regarding the packaging of the new upstream version of checkstyle. As it
is a library, should I rename the binary package to libcheckstyle-java, or
would this cause far too many problems?
Thanks,
Paul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contac
4 matches
Mail list logo