pdksh package proposal

[Gareth Pearce]

> On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 05:39:07PM -0000, Max Bowsher wrote:
> >Elfyn McBratney wrote:
> >>> Your source package does not conform to 'Method Two', though you
> >>> seem to be convinced that it is.
> >>
> >> Sorry this is totally new to me, I'm going with "Method One". I was a
> >> bit confused but have read the document again since.
> >
> >There seems to be a trend towards Method Two, although I don't remember
any
> >preference being officially declared.
> >
> >Method two does have the advantage that it is a lot clearer how to
exactly
> >reproduce the original packager's build.
> >
> >Perhaps a standard needs to be declared about which method is to be used
for
> >new packages.
>
> It doesn't matter.
>
> cgf

awww comeon!   Dont you just have this craving to go back to the good ol
days where robert/charles/you/me/everyoneelse would argue day after day
about the merits of 3a vs 3b vs 5 vs 8 ...

hmm wait - neither do I.

But can you tell me where i can get a copy of b...

Gareth - will get round to releasing nano 1.2.0 any day now ... really!
(maybe after I get round to testing it first...)