[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Request for review: fnfx
- From: Andreas Bierfert <andreas bierfert lowlatency de>
- To: Discussion related to Fedora Extras <fedora-extras-list redhat com>
- Subject: Re: Request for review: fnfx
- Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 00:47:34 +0200
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> All I can recall is this:
>
> http://www.fedora.us/pipermail/fedora-devel/2003-June/001454.html
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.rpm.general/4867
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-April/msg00559.html
>
> This isn't conclusive:
>
> http://fedora.redhat.com/participate/developers-guide/ch-rpm-building.html
>
> I guess there's no consensus. I wonder if we couldn't get an official
> ruling one way or the other (or that it doesn't matter) so that this
> can go in the Wiki.
That would be great. I don't mind one way or the other... i am just familiar
with the one I used... would hate to see this stuck because of this...
- - Andreas
- --
Andreas Bierfert | http://awbsworld.de | GPG: C58CF1CB
andreas bierfert lowlatency de | http://lowlatency.de | signed/encrypted
phone: +49 2402 102373 | cell: +49 172 9789968 | mail preferred
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCvI2GQEQyPsWM8csRAi/zAJ0X6DoiP8Zmyt4gnscuelxwCBfHYQCghith
TeE/qMAuEcRmh+eT/CMVahY=
=VNNM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]