On 13/05/2014 20:32, Andrew Schulman wrote:
Attached is a patch which moves the old method one and two to an archive
page, and continues the boffo packaging example into the section for the
cygport method.
Other stuff left to do:
- Change to link to the new upload process page
- Correct paths on
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 03:03:19PM -0400, Andrew Schulman wrote:
> >I'd like to adopt the pinfo package, since I use it. I have a new build of
> >the latest version, 0.6.10, ready for x86 and x86_64, with a new cygport
> >build script.
> >
> >I'm not sure if there's anything else I need to do.
On May 13 15:03, Andrew Schulman wrote:
> I'd like to adopt the pinfo package, since I use it. I have a new build of
> the latest version, 0.6.10, ready for x86 and x86_64, with a new cygport
> build script.
>
> I'm not sure if there's anything else I need to do. If there's no
> objection, I thi
> Attached is a patch which moves the old method one and two to an archive
> page, and continues the boffo packaging example into the section for the
> cygport method.
>
> Other stuff left to do:
> - Change to link to the new upload process page
> - Correct paths on the package server from relea
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 03:03:19PM -0400, Andrew Schulman wrote:
>I'd like to adopt the pinfo package, since I use it. I have a new build of
>the latest version, 0.6.10, ready for x86 and x86_64, with a new cygport
>build script.
>
>I'm not sure if there's anything else I need to do. If there's n
I'd like to adopt the pinfo package, since I use it. I have a new build of
the latest version, 0.6.10, ready for x86 and x86_64, with a new cygport
build script.
I'm not sure if there's anything else I need to do. If there's no
objection, I think I can just add pinfo to my !packages file in the
