On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 02:03:17PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> Instead of Rules-Version: in control, which specifies a single interface
> 'number', how about a Rules-Interface:, which contains a series of flags,
> specifying what features are supported?
>
> I leave it up to this list to decide what
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 02:04:27AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > It's newer and shinier, so it must be better, right?
> >
> > If we're adding optional features, doing so in a way that doesn't
> > confuse people into believing that all packages need to use
LOTTO INTERNATIONAL SL
236 CALLREIMBRANATSLIEN,
28275MADRID SPAIN.
FROM: THE DESK OF THE VICE PRESIDENT.
INTERNATIONAL PROMOTION/PRIZE AWARD.
BACTH NO:LDNL REF NO:LDNL/
RE: AWARD WINNING FINAL NOTIFICATION.
This is to inform you of the release of the GLOBAL LOTTERY
INTERNATION
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 01:03:48PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 09:59:24AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Choose one:
> >
> > The first is to add a debian/rules.version with meaning:
> > debian/rules.version is present and is "1\n": build-arch and build-indep
> > are
4 matches
Mail list logo
