Daniel Drake wrote:
> Roy Marples wrote:
>> Now, if the commandline is the same, should the package name be the
>> same? If so, what version number should I be using? It's currently
>> just called resolvconf-0.1
>
> Definately change the name of the package (if not the script itself)
> otherwise t
Roy Marples wrote:
Now, if the commandline is the same, should the package name be the same? If
so, what version number should I be using? It's currently just called
resolvconf-0.1
Definately change the name of the package (if not the script itself)
otherwise the Debian resolvconf author woul
On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 18:29 +, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Monday 20 March 2006 17:59, Luca Barbato wrote:
> > why not having it implemented as eselect module? ^^;
>
> I am not familiar with eselect.
> Also, I fail to see the benefit of using the eselect framework
> when /sbin/functions.sh provid
On Monday 20 March 2006 17:59, Luca Barbato wrote:
> why not having it implemented as eselect module? ^^;
I am not familiar with eselect.
Also, I fail to see the benefit of using the eselect framework
when /sbin/functions.sh provides what I need as a base.
Of course, feel free to talk me around.
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Monday 20 March 2006 18:42, Roy Marples wrote:
>> Now, if the commandline is the same, should the package name be the same?
>> If so, what version number should I be using? It's currently just called
>> resolvconf-0.1
> I would say gentoo-resolvconf as it's a r
On Monday 20 March 2006 18:42, Roy Marples wrote:
> Now, if the commandline is the same, should the package name be the same?
> If so, what version number should I be using? It's currently just called
> resolvconf-0.1
I would say gentoo-resolvconf as it's a rewrite/fork.
--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pett
