On 21 September 2010 14:57, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
> Sounds good -- please also forward any patches we have (I don't think
> there are many except for your recent stuff though?).
>
> I still think it makes sense to have a copy in gnulib, just as gnulib
> contains a copy of many other things pull
Reuben Thomas writes:
> On 21 September 2010 13:28, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Reuben Thomas writes:
>>> By the way, is there some reason to keep this file and pmccabe.css in
>>> gnulib rather than push it upstream to pmccabe, and make the gnulib
>>> module just make the test and suggest an appr
On 21 September 2010 13:28, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Reuben Thomas writes:
>> By the way, is there some reason to keep this file and pmccabe.css in
>> gnulib rather than push it upstream to pmccabe, and make the gnulib
>> module just make the test and suggest an appropriate Makefile.am patch
>> w
Reuben Thomas writes:
> Attached, to make the whitespace in the Makefile.am example more
> copy-and-paste friendly.
Applied, thanks.
> By the way, is there some reason to keep this file and pmccabe.css in
> gnulib rather than push it upstream to pmccabe, and make the gnulib
> module just make t
Attached, to make the whitespace in the Makefile.am example more
copy-and-paste friendly.
By the way, is there some reason to keep this file and pmccabe.css in
gnulib rather than push it upstream to pmccabe, and make the gnulib
module just make the test and suggest an appropriate Makefile.am patch
