Custom Query (344 matches)
Results (22 - 24 of 344)
| Ticket | Resolution | Summary | Owner | Reporter |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #224 | fixed | Project URL needs correcting in wpi4rpm SPEC | ||
| Description |
Project URL in SPEC reads: Should be: |
|||
| #101 | fixed | Need to update wiki to reflect newer build of bootstrap package | ||
| Description |
I'm a bit confused concerning the newer bootstrap packages. In the repo directories, I see rpm-yum-bootstrap-1_4.wpi rpm-yum-bootstrap-1_5-i386.wpi rpm-yum-bootstrap-1_5-p4.wpi I've always been a bit confused regarding the proper arch for OS/2. Do I take the above literally, that if I actually have a Pentium 4 system I should use the p4 wpi and if I have something newer, I should use the i386 wpi? IAC, we should update the wiki to reflect the newer builds. I'm happy to do that, but I just need some guidance. |
|||
| #104 | wontfix | Group tag standardization | ||
| Description |
As our collection of packages has grown, the need for better organization has become greater. Most of our packages utilize the Group tag, but I'm not clear as to what standard we follow. For example, Fedora has an optional Group tag, and few explicit categories, while openSUSE has a much more detailed list. Mageia has yet a different set of standard group tags. Some other packages of ours (virtual ones, such as the netlabs-rel, netlabs-exp, os2-base, os2-mpts) have no group tag at all. YUMIE (still under development) has the ability to filter the package list based upon group, so this is a working example of where these tags will be used. I'm happy to add the necessary page to the rpm wiki here once we agree on a reasonable standard (and it doesn't have to be one of the existing ones; for example, I would suggest a group of "Virtual" for the virtual packages). |
|||
