Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+xfsprogs\:\s+simplify\s+and\s+unify\s+source\s+package\s+generation\s*$/: 5 ]

Total 5 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH] xfsprogs: simplify and unify source package generation (score: 1)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 22:45:04 -0400
Currently the build/ directory can create rpm, debian and source / binary tar packages. The RPM generation is not used as all distributions prefer their own spec files, and the binary tarball not use
/archives/xfs/2009-10/msg00090.html (32,876 bytes)

2. Re: [PATCH] xfsprogs: simplify and unify source package generation (score: 1)
Author: Nathan Scott <nscott@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:49:51 +1100 (EST)
to test it out yet, though - but from just eyeballing it, and if noone pipes up complaining about the auto-rpm-build removal (I don't expect they will, at this stage of xfsprogs life) it all looks go
/archives/xfs/2009-10/msg00106.html (8,279 bytes)

3. Re: [PATCH] xfsprogs: simplify and unify source package generation (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:29:51 -0500
Currently the build/ directory can create rpm, debian and source / binary tar packages. The RPM generation is not used as all distributions prefer, their own spec files, and the binary tarball not u
/archives/xfs/2009-10/msg00108.html (8,957 bytes)

4. Re: [PATCH] xfsprogs: simplify and unify source package generation (score: 1)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 03:47:15 -0400
Thanks. Does this count as a reviewed-by? Btw, one other thing I'm pondering is removing the automatic call to ./configure from make if it's not configured yet. It causes lots of pain for the topleve
/archives/xfs/2009-10/msg00243.html (8,399 bytes)

5. Re: [PATCH] xfsprogs: simplify and unify source package generation (score: 1)
Author: Nathan Scott <nscott@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:36:45 +1100 (EST)
Yep, sorry - Reviewed-by: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx> Its not so bad IMO & we seem to be getting into the realm of gratuitous change, but - *shrug* - doesn't make much difference I guess, I'm s
/archives/xfs/2009-10/msg00244.html (8,543 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu