On 6/20/07, Joel B. Mohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyhow, the new package for sage_c_lib gets a bit confusing because we had a
> mercurial repository for the actual development of the sage_c_lib in the
> original sage_c_lib spkg. The new spkg spec calls for a mercurial repository
> for the
On Wednesday 20 June 2007 08:33, Joel B. Mohler wrote:
> Here's some options for the purposes of voting on what should happen for
> the sage_c_lib.spkg:
> 1) Have a mercurial repository in the root of the spkg for the spkg
> scripts and a *seperate* mercurial repository for development of the act
