sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
Re: [SM-Discuss] build_api 2 spells that are not marked as such
- From: Arwed von Merkatz <v.merkatz AT gmx.net>
- To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] build_api 2 spells that are not marked as such
- Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:24:17 +0200
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 09:27:57AM -0700, Eric Sandall wrote:
> Quoting Seth Alan Woolley <seth AT positivism.org>:
> > The list below is more accurate, as the perl-deprecateds will be deleted
> > and didn't have history entries put on them when they were made
> > deprecated.
> >
> > Looks like Eric needs to be taken out back and shot for god and country.
> > Although it was on Feb 28th that he really messed everything up.
> >
> > Seth
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 12:50:27AM -0700, Seth Alan Woolley wrote:
> > > Trying to build pciutils, I noticed it didn't install anything.
> > >
> > > Reason was that it was built with build api 2, but there was no
> > > indication anywhere that it was a build api 2 spell.
> > >
> > > So I looked for a list of spells in build api 1 but with an INSTALL file
> > > in them. Here it is, and you'll note I'm also guilty on one (granted
> > > when I look at nail's install file, it's pretty much the same as the
> > > default install to prove that I indeed tested it):
> > >
[...]
> Fixed, and you may want to note that not all of those were my fault, but I
> was
> just the last to edit the spells (e.g. gdeskcal), though most of mine we're
> my
> fault. ;) I could always take a break on the grimoire work if my changes are
> too buggy for y'all.
Definitely not, please continue your grimoire work :)
You're keeping quite some spells from falling into bitrot with your
work, and if you introduce bugs while doing that, it'll just make other
people notice those spells and (hopefully) fix them =)
--
Arwed v. Merkatz Source Mage GNU/Linux developer
http://www.sourcemage.org
-
[SM-Discuss] build_api 2 spells that are not marked as such,
Seth Alan Woolley, 04/20/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] build_api 2 spells that are not marked as such,
Seth Alan Woolley, 04/20/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] build_api 2 spells that are not marked as such,
Benoit PAPILLAULT, 04/20/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] build_api 2 spells that are not marked as such,
Flavien Bridault, 04/20/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] build_api 2 spells that are not marked as such,
Andrew, 04/20/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] build_api 2 spells that are not marked as such, Seth Alan Woolley, 04/20/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] build_api 2 spells that are not marked as such,
Andrew, 04/20/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] build_api 2 spells that are not marked as such,
Flavien Bridault, 04/20/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] build_api 2 spells that are not marked as such,
Eric Sandall, 04/20/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] build_api 2 spells that are not marked as such, Arwed von Merkatz, 04/20/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] build_api 2 spells that are not marked as such, Seth Alan Woolley, 04/20/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] build_api 2 spells that are not marked as such,
Benoit PAPILLAULT, 04/20/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] build_api 2 spells that are not marked as such,
Seth Alan Woolley, 04/20/2005
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.