Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
>> Why is it that the package URL is not listed, but only the location
>> where it *should* be?
>>
>
>> So, why not just list the package URL?
>
> Short answer...it's a historical oversight, I think.
>
> Long answer...
>
> We u
On Jan 15, 2006, at 4:04 PM, Richard A Downing wrote:
Oh! I thought it was so clever-clogs could get a later (and greater,
of course) version if he wanted, and then bombard the support list
with
questions about why his system is screwed :-)
"I suppose the reason I was having problems was c
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:40:26 +
Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> > Why is it that the package URL is not listed, but only the location
> > where it *should* be?
> >
>
> > So, why not just list the package URL?
>
> Short answer...it's a historical oversi
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Why is it that the package URL is not listed, but only the location
where it *should* be?
So, why not just list the package URL?
Short answer...it's a historical oversight, I think.
Long answer...
We used to point to the packages homepage rather than to the download
Dimitry Naldayev wrote these words on 01/15/06 14:55 CST:
> The chapter 3.2 "All Packages" contain not urls of the packages but only
> urls their locations. Are there main reason for this?
You are the second person in the last two days to ask this very
same question. I'll be the third.
Why is it
