[Bug 168190] Review Request: gpsim - A simulator for Microchip (TM) PIC (TM) microcontrollers
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Oct 5 08:53:39 UTC 2005
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gpsim - A simulator for Microchip (TM) PIC (TM) microcontrollers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=168190
------- Additional Comments From aportal at univ-montp2.fr 2005-10-05 04:53 EST -------
(In reply to comment #14)
> (In reply to comment #13)
> > To name these packages, I purpose gtk+extra for the 1.0.0 version and
> > gtk2+extra for the 2.1.1 version.
> OK with me.
>
> > What to do with the current package named gtk+extra-1.1.0 on the cvs?
> > Because it will seems newer than gtk+extra-1.0.0.
> I see 3 approaches:
>
> 1. package the official gtk+extra-1.x into gtk+extra and increment this
> package's epoch. This way, the new gtk+extra package will drive the
"inofficial
> version" out of systems.
I never use the Epoch tag. Should I have to put "Epoch: 1" in the spec?
Should I have to do the same thing with the gpsim spec because 0.21.4 requires
the inofficial gtk+extra package? gpsim version is now 0.21.11.
Should I have to get a review request for the gtk2+extra package?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
More information about the fedora-extras-list
mailing list