xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: A few questions regarding XFS 1.2

To: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: A few questions regarding XFS 1.2
From: Stefan Smietanowski <stesmi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 22:04:32 +0100
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
References: <3E51449A.5000502@stesmi.com> <1045515555.98641.15.camel@lupo.thebarn.com>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20021003
Russell Cattelan wrote:
On Mon, 2003-02-17 at 14:22, Stefan Smietanowski wrote:

Can someone please inform me about something..

The installer ISO contains acl-2.0.19, acl-devel-2.0.19 and libacl-2.0.19 whereas the RPMS directory on the ftp site contains acl-2.0.19, libacl-2.0.19 and libacl-devel-2.0.19. Why?

Also, The attr package version is 2.0.11-0 in the installer image but 2.0.12-0 on the ftp site. Again, why? Same name issue exists (attr-devel vs libattr-devel).

// Stefan

The re-spin of the installer was done in about an hour. I probably missed updating my build scripts with the new names/versions. If I find some time I'll look at fixing that but no promises.


Thanx. Why I asked was that maybe it was done on purpose for some reason. I'm just finalizing my DVD based on 1.2..


// Stefan


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>