perfsonar-dev - Re: [pS-dev] package naming
Subject: perfsonar development work
List archive
- From: Gijs Molenaar <>
- To: Nicolas Simar <>
- Cc:
- Subject: Re: [pS-dev] package naming
- Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 02:26:58 +0200
Gijs Molenaar wrote:
> Nicolas Simar wrote:
>> Yes it is.
>
> So why don't all the packages follow this convention yet? Or am I wrong?
So? everybody is just going to ignore this question until there is a
major inconsistency at the release? interesting.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- Re: [pS-dev] package naming, Gijs Molenaar, 10/03/2008
- Re: [pS-dev] package naming, Nicolas Simar, 10/06/2008
- Re: [pS-dev] package naming, Roman Lapacz, 10/06/2008
- Re: [pS-dev] package naming, Gijs Molenaar, 10/06/2008
- Re: [pS-dev] package naming, Roman Lapacz, 10/06/2008
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: [pS-dev] package naming, Roman Lapacz, 10/05/2008
- Re: [pS-dev] package naming, Nicolas Simar, 10/06/2008
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.