From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make the git metapackage require the same version of the subpackages. Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 13:24:30 -0800 Message-ID: <7vhchq4pgx.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20080106173501.GB9349@spitfire> <7vprwe4s8e.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <3f80363f0801061313o514fa01bje354503483db47ab@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: "James Bowes" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Jan 06 22:25:06 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JBczO-0003Oh-Eh for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 06 Jan 2008 22:25:02 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753877AbYAFVYg (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Jan 2008 16:24:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753642AbYAFVYg (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Jan 2008 16:24:36 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:62323 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753536AbYAFVYf (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Jan 2008 16:24:35 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-quonix (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4570EAAD2; Sun, 6 Jan 2008 16:24:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEE0FAAD0; Sun, 6 Jan 2008 16:24:31 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <3f80363f0801061313o514fa01bje354503483db47ab@mail.gmail.com> (James Bowes's message of "Sun, 6 Jan 2008 16:13:26 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: "James Bowes" writes: > I believe the obsolete is still needed, as you'd need a way to tell > rpm to just get rid of git-p4 entirely. Thanks. I am also wondering what should happen to spec file if we were to later re-introduce git-p4, but that is not an immediate concern.