On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 12:34 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>
>>> Hopefully your intention is only to illustrate what projects should not
>>> do
>>> and not to submit a patch. This libkmod project seems to be less than
>>> two
>>> months old and perhaps th
Hi Peter,
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 12:45 AM, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> On 02/07/2012 07:06 PM, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>>
>>
>> Yes. We can always learn. It seems that this is not the case here.
>> There are other projects releasing like this and no one pointed out to
>> a reasonable argument against
On Wednesday 2012-02-08 03:45, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> On 02/07/2012 07:06 PM, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>>
>> Yes. We can always learn. It seems that this is not the case here.
>> There are other projects releasing like this and no one pointed out to
>> a reasonable argument against it. That means t
On 02/07/2012 07:06 PM, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
Yes. We can always learn. It seems that this is not the case here.
There are other projects releasing like this and no one pointed out to
a reasonable argument against it. That means these arguments are not
valid in our case:
Again, use -version-n
Hi Bob
[ Please don't remove CC ]
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:03 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
>> Much to my disappointment, I found that the newly-released libkmod v5
>> has made the following non-trivial change to its source tree, the latter
>> of which
On Tue, 7 Feb 2012, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
Hopefully your intention is only to illustrate what projects should not do
and not to submit a patch. This libkmod project seems to be less than two
months old and perhaps the developers still have a bit to learn about
library versioning.
Yes. We can
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 3:03 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
>> Much to my disappointment, I found that the newly-released libkmod v5
>> has made the following non-trivial change to its source tree, the latter
>> of which I want to bring to attention:
>
> [s
Much to my disappointment, I found that the newly-released libkmod v5
has made the following non-trivial change to its source tree, the latter
of which I want to bring to attention:
commit e479598b7d19ae7be45bf5329d6e4df32d646c16
diff --git a/Makefile.am b/Makefile.am
ind
On 02/06/2012 06:35 PM, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
Much to my disappointment, I found that the newly-released libkmod v5
has made the following non-trivial change to its source tree, the latter
of which I want to bring to attention:
commit e479598b7d19ae7be45bf5329d6e4df32d646c16
diff
On Tue, 7 Feb 2012, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
Much to my disappointment, I found that the newly-released libkmod v5
has made the following non-trivial change to its source tree, the latter
of which I want to bring to attention:
[stuff removed]
(The numbers are directly fed into libtool's -version-
10 matches
Mail list logo
