On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> So, my thought would be:
>
> Definitely build in rawhide. A heads up to those that have packages
> that build with it would be welcome.
>
> For stable releases I would suggest collecting a list of packages that
> BuildRequire it and see how ex
So, my thought would be:
Definitely build in rawhide. A heads up to those that have packages
that build with it would be welcome.
For stable releases I would suggest collecting a list of packages that
BuildRequire it and see how extensive this list is, and then consult
with those maintainers if
A small request:Can you package it into EPEL6?
I found this one only shipped in EPEL5,therefore why not ship it into EPEL6?
--
Best Regards,
Christopher Meng--'Cicku'
Ambassador/Contributor of Fedora Project and Contributor of GNU.
Blog:http://cicku.me
Social:http://about.me/cicku
--
deve
Btw, here's the full changelog for AsciiDoc:
http://www.methods.co.nz/asciidoc/CHANGELOG.html
Oh yeah, btw, the latest version is 8.6.8 :)
I've also attached a diff of the output when I run the asciidoc test suite
on version 8.4.5 and 8.6.7. While all the documents are parsed correctly,
you'll n
I'm seeking request for approval to upgrade the asciidoc package [1]. The
latest version of AsciiDoc is 8.6.7, released this month. The version
currently packaged is 8.4.5, released May 2009 (not exactly what we would
call *first*).
An issue request has already been filed for this upgrade [2] and
