On wo, 2009-07-08 at 15:56 -0700, Graham Percival wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:49:00AM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> > On di, 2009-07-07 at 01:16 -0700, Patrick McCarty wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 01:01:22AM -0700, Graham Percival wrote:
> > > > Hi Patrick-the-incredible-helper,
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:49:00AM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> On di, 2009-07-07 at 01:16 -0700, Patrick McCarty wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 01:01:22AM -0700, Graham Percival wrote:
> > > Hi Patrick-the-incredible-helper,
> > >
> > > When you build something in GUB, what build number
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 5:16 AM, Patrick McCarty wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 01:01:22AM -0700, Graham Percival wrote:
>> When you build something in GUB, what build number (2.13.3-x) do
>> you get? I always get -0, even when I build a new package without
>> changing the version number. I susp
On di, 2009-07-07 at 01:16 -0700, Patrick McCarty wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 01:01:22AM -0700, Graham Percival wrote:
> > Hi Patrick-the-incredible-helper,
> >
> > When you build something in GUB, what build number (2.13.3-x) do
> > you get? I always get -0, even when I build a new package
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 01:01:22AM -0700, Graham Percival wrote:
> Hi Patrick-the-incredible-helper,
>
> When you build something in GUB, what build number (2.13.3-x) do
> you get? I always get -0, even when I build a new package without
> changing the version number. I suspect that this causes
Hi Patrick-the-incredible-helper,
When you build something in GUB, what build number (2.13.3-x) do
you get? I always get -0, even when I build a new package without
changing the version number. I suspect that this causes slight
breakage in certain scripts.
(this is a relatively low-priority que
