pkgutil-users Mailing List for pkgutil
Status: Beta
Brought to you by:
bonivart
Menu
▾
▴
pkgutil-users — User list for questions etc.
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2009 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(9) |
Apr
(25) |
May
(19) |
Jun
(33) |
Jul
(2) |
Aug
(13) |
Sep
(28) |
Oct
(43) |
Nov
(24) |
Dec
(27) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 |
Jan
(5) |
Feb
(11) |
Mar
(39) |
Apr
(22) |
May
(4) |
Jun
(10) |
Jul
(52) |
Aug
(12) |
Sep
(12) |
Oct
(31) |
Nov
(13) |
Dec
(14) |
| 2011 |
Jan
(15) |
Feb
(19) |
Mar
(13) |
Apr
(1) |
May
(8) |
Jun
(1) |
Jul
(11) |
Aug
(16) |
Sep
(14) |
Oct
(4) |
Nov
(3) |
Dec
(8) |
| 2012 |
Jan
(11) |
Feb
(15) |
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(3) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2013 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(5) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2015 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
(4) |
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: Peter B. <bon...@op...> - 2015-06-28 18:30:33
|
On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 1:50 AM, Vadym Chepkov <vch...@gm...> wrote: > >> On Jun 27, 2015, at 4:50 PM, Peter Bonivart <bon...@op...> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 1:38 AM, Vadym Chepkov <vch...@gm...> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I stumbled upon an unusual case, which I can’t solve. Hopefully somebody can give me some pointers. >>> I have multiple versions of a package made by fpm in the catalog and pkgutil displays all of them: >> >> You need to use REV in the version field (just like OpenCSW does), >> it's all described here: http://pkgutil.wikidot.com/bldcat#toc2. > > What about parameter 'noncsw=true’ in pkgutil.conf > Is it obsolete? No, it's not obsolete but it has nothing to do with how pkgutil determines which package is newer. Two different things. |
|
From: Vadym C. <vch...@gm...> - 2015-06-27 23:50:41
|
> On Jun 27, 2015, at 4:50 PM, Peter Bonivart <bon...@op...> wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 1:38 AM, Vadym Chepkov <vch...@gm...> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I stumbled upon an unusual case, which I can’t solve. Hopefully somebody can give me some pointers. >> I have multiple versions of a package made by fpm in the catalog and pkgutil displays all of them: > > You need to use REV in the version field (just like OpenCSW does), > it's all described here: http://pkgutil.wikidot.com/bldcat#toc2. What about parameter 'noncsw=true’ in pkgutil.conf Is it obsolete? Thanks, Vadym |
|
From: Peter B. <bon...@op...> - 2015-06-27 20:51:20
|
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 1:38 AM, Vadym Chepkov <vch...@gm...> wrote: > Hi, > > I stumbled upon an unusual case, which I can’t solve. Hopefully somebody can give me some pointers. > I have multiple versions of a package made by fpm in the catalog and pkgutil displays all of them: You need to use REV in the version field (just like OpenCSW does), it's all described here: http://pkgutil.wikidot.com/bldcat#toc2. |
|
From: Vadym C. <vch...@gm...> - 2015-06-26 23:38:24
|
Hi, I stumbled upon an unusual case, which I can’t solve. Hopefully somebody can give me some pointers. I have multiple versions of a package made by fpm in the catalog and pkgutil displays all of them: # pkgutil -a|grep bpub Duplicate mirror definition skipped (file:///sftwre/bpub/solaris/development). Duplicate mirror definition skipped (http://mirror.opencsw.org/opencsw/stable). => Fetching new catalog and descriptions (file:///sftwre/bpub/solaris/development/sparc/5.10) if available ... ==> 19 packages loaded from /var/opt/csw/pkgutil/catalog._sftwre_bpub_solaris_development_sparc_5.10 bpub-tools bpub-tools 4.0.0.37 58.0 KB bpub-tools bpub-tools 4.0.1.38 58.0 KB bpub-tools bpub-tools 4.0.2.39 58.0 KB bpub-tools bpub-tools 4.1.0.40 59.5 KB bpub-tools bpub-tools 4.1.1.41 59.5 KB bpub-tools bpub-tools 4.1.2.42 59.5 KB bpub-tools bpub-tools 4.2.0.43 60.0 KB bpub-tools bpub-tools 4.3.0.44 60.0 KB bpub-tools bpub-tools 4.4.0.45 60.5 KB bpub-tools bpub-tools 4.5.0.46 60.5 KB bpub-tools bpub-tools 4.5.1.47 60.5 KB bpub-tools bpub-tools 4.5.2.48 60.5 KB bpub-tools bpub-tools 4.6.0.52 63.0 KB bpub-tools bpub-tools 5.0.4.70 63.0 KB bpub-tools bpub-tools 5.0.5.71 63.0 KB bpub-tools bpub-tools 5.0.7.73 63.0 KB bpub-tools bpub-tools 5.1.0.74 63.0 KB bpub-tools bpub-tools 5.2.0.75 63.5 KB bpub-tools bpub-tools 5.2.0.76 63.5 KB But if I try to check for an upgrade, I get this: # pkgutil -c|grep bpub Duplicate mirror definition skipped (file:///sftwre/bpub/solaris/development). Duplicate mirror definition skipped (http://mirror.opencsw.org/opencsw/stable). => Fetching new catalog and descriptions (file:///sftwre/bpub/solaris/development/sparc/5.10) if available ... ==> 19 packages loaded from /var/opt/csw/pkgutil/catalog._sftwre_bpub_solaris_development_sparc_5.10 bpub-tools 5.0.4.70 SAME Furthermore, if I remove version 5.0.4.70 from the catalog, bldcat and pkgutil -U, I get this: # pkgutil -c|grep bpub Duplicate mirror definition skipped (file:///sftwre/bpub/solaris/development). Duplicate mirror definition skipped (http://mirror.opencsw.org/opencsw/stable). => Fetching new catalog and descriptions (file:///sftwre/bpub/solaris/development/sparc/5.10) if available ... ==> 18 packages loaded from /var/opt/csw/pkgutil/catalog._sftwre_bpub_solaris_development_sparc_5.10 bpub-tools 5.0.4.70 4.3.0.44 I can’t figure out this mystery. pkgutil 2.6.6 Thanks, Vadym |
|
From: Peter B. <bon...@op...> - 2013-08-22 08:46:08
|
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 4:25 AM, KillBoy PowerHed <kil...@ya...> wrote: > Hi Peter, > > The internal packaging system has been around a longer than me so getting > all the app builds updated to include revision info is not likely to happen > without someone coughing up some cash, I guess they'll have to stick with > this fix or specify the required version in puppet rather than 'latest' For reference, when OpenCSW forked from Blastwave, a simple script using pkgtrans to extract the packages rewrote some metadata in pkginfo and then put them together again automagically. /peter |
|
From: KillBoy P. <kil...@ya...> - 2013-08-22 02:25:29
|
Hi Peter, The internal packaging system has been around a longer than me so getting all the app builds updated to include revision info is not likely to happen without someone coughing up some cash, I guess they'll have to stick with this fix or specify the required version in puppet rather than 'latest' thanks ________________________________ From: Peter Bonivart <bon...@op...> To: KillBoy PowerHed <kil...@ya...>; pkgutil-users <pkg...@li...> Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2013 5:13 PM Subject: Re: [Pkgutil-users] comparing multiple versions without revisions fails - patch attached for review On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Peter Bonivart <bon...@op...> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:01 AM, KillBoy PowerHed > <kil...@ya...> wrote: >> Hi list, >> >> I came across this issue yesterday when I found "ensure => 'latest'" had >> never worked in puppet with custom package repositories, it seems to be the >> 4th case in verscmp() that was the culprit. I've stolen versioncmp() from >> the Sort::Versions CPAN module and call that inside case 4 now which seems >> to be working. >> >> This patch seems a little hacky and could obviously do with some thorough >> testing and more eyes so if you have this issue please take a look at the >> attached, hopefully someone can come up with a cleaner solution. >> >> thanks > > Since it's impossible to cover all variants of versions OpenCSW > intentionally choose to ignore the upstream version and only use the > REV-field which is purely numeric, this is documented here: > http://pkgutil.wikidot.com/get-install-and-configure#toc9. > > I have always recommended people who create their own repos to follow > that standard and they will get it right every time. Example: > 1.0,REV=2013.08.20 but any number of numeric fields are supported, > e.g. 1.0,REV=1234 or 1.0,REV=2013.08.20.17.16. Just remembered that there's more documentation here about this: http://pkgutil.wikidot.com/bldcat#toc2. /peter |
|
From: Peter B. <bon...@op...> - 2013-08-21 07:13:39
|
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Peter Bonivart <bon...@op...> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:01 AM, KillBoy PowerHed > <kil...@ya...> wrote: >> Hi list, >> >> I came across this issue yesterday when I found "ensure => 'latest'" had >> never worked in puppet with custom package repositories, it seems to be the >> 4th case in verscmp() that was the culprit. I've stolen versioncmp() from >> the Sort::Versions CPAN module and call that inside case 4 now which seems >> to be working. >> >> This patch seems a little hacky and could obviously do with some thorough >> testing and more eyes so if you have this issue please take a look at the >> attached, hopefully someone can come up with a cleaner solution. >> >> thanks > > Since it's impossible to cover all variants of versions OpenCSW > intentionally choose to ignore the upstream version and only use the > REV-field which is purely numeric, this is documented here: > http://pkgutil.wikidot.com/get-install-and-configure#toc9. > > I have always recommended people who create their own repos to follow > that standard and they will get it right every time. Example: > 1.0,REV=2013.08.20 but any number of numeric fields are supported, > e.g. 1.0,REV=1234 or 1.0,REV=2013.08.20.17.16. Just remembered that there's more documentation here about this: http://pkgutil.wikidot.com/bldcat#toc2. /peter |
|
From: Peter B. <bon...@op...> - 2013-08-20 15:20:07
|
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:01 AM, KillBoy PowerHed <kil...@ya...> wrote: > Hi list, > > I came across this issue yesterday when I found "ensure => 'latest'" had > never worked in puppet with custom package repositories, it seems to be the > 4th case in verscmp() that was the culprit. I've stolen versioncmp() from > the Sort::Versions CPAN module and call that inside case 4 now which seems > to be working. > > This patch seems a little hacky and could obviously do with some thorough > testing and more eyes so if you have this issue please take a look at the > attached, hopefully someone can come up with a cleaner solution. > > thanks Since it's impossible to cover all variants of versions OpenCSW intentionally choose to ignore the upstream version and only use the REV-field which is purely numeric, this is documented here: http://pkgutil.wikidot.com/get-install-and-configure#toc9. I have always recommended people who create their own repos to follow that standard and they will get it right every time. Example: 1.0,REV=2013.08.20 but any number of numeric fields are supported, e.g. 1.0,REV=1234 or 1.0,REV=2013.08.20.17.16. Regards, Peter |
|
From: KillBoy P. <kil...@ya...> - 2013-08-20 03:15:02
|
--- a/pkgutil Tue Aug 20 12:44:26 2013
+++ b/pkgutil Tue Aug 20 12:46:07 2013
@@ -2735,6 +2735,42 @@
myexit( "", "", 0 );
}
+# stolen from Sort::Versions @ CPAN
+sub sortVersionsVersioncmp( $$ ) {
+ my @A = ($_[0] =~ /([-.]|\d+|[^-.\d]+)/g);
+ my @B = ($_[1] =~ /([-.]|\d+|[^-.\d]+)/g);
+
+ my ($A, $B);
+ while (@A and @B) {
+ $A = shift @A;
+ $B = shift @B;
+ if ($A eq '-' and $B eq '-') {
+ next;
+ } elsif ( $A eq '-' ) {
+ return -1;
+ } elsif ( $B eq '-') {
+ return 1;
+ } elsif ($A eq '.' and $B eq '.') {
+ next;
+ } elsif ( $A eq '.' ) {
+ return -1;
+ } elsif ( $B eq '.' ) {
+ return 1;
+ } elsif ($A =~ /^\d+$/ and $B =~ /^\d+$/) {
+ if ($A =~ /^0/ || $B =~ /^0/) {
+ return $A cmp $B if $A cmp $B;
+ } else {
+ return $A <=> $B if $A <=> $B;
+ }
+ } else {
+ $A = uc $A;
+ $B = uc $B;
+ return $A cmp $B if $A cmp $B;
+ }
+ }
+ @A <=> @B;
+}
+
# Comparison of two package versions as per
# http://pkgutil.net/get-install-and-configure#toc8
# As per cmp or <=>, -1, 0, or 1 if p1 is less than, equal to or greater than p2
@@ -2814,7 +2850,9 @@
# 4th case: installed no REV, catalog no REV => upgrade
if ( !$skip ) {
- $update = 1 if ( $p1rev !~ /REV=/ && $p2rev !~ /REV=/ );
+ if ( $p1rev !~ /REV=/ && $p2rev !~ /REV=/ ) {
+ $update = sortVersionsVersioncmp($p1rev, $p2rev);
+ }
}
return $update;
|
|
From: <bon...@us...> - 2012-08-15 11:50:56
|
Revision: 458
http://pkgutil.svn.sourceforge.net/pkgutil/?rev=458&view=rev
Author: bonivart
Date: 2012-08-15 11:50:50 +0000 (Wed, 15 Aug 2012)
Log Message:
-----------
create tag for 2.6.5 release
Added Paths:
-----------
tags/2.6.5/
tags/2.6.5/pkgutil
tags/2.6.5/readme
Removed Paths:
-------------
tags/2.6.5/pkgutil
tags/2.6.5/readme
This was sent by the SourceForge.net collaborative development platform, the world's largest Open Source development site.
|
|
From: <bon...@us...> - 2012-08-15 10:33:28
|
Revision: 457
http://pkgutil.svn.sourceforge.net/pkgutil/?rev=457&view=rev
Author: bonivart
Date: 2012-08-15 10:33:22 +0000 (Wed, 15 Aug 2012)
Log Message:
-----------
update readme
Modified Paths:
--------------
trunk/pkgutil
trunk/readme
This was sent by the SourceForge.net collaborative development platform, the world's largest Open Source development site.
|
|
From: <bon...@us...> - 2012-08-13 15:24:29
|
Revision: 456
http://pkgutil.svn.sourceforge.net/pkgutil/?rev=456&view=rev
Author: bonivart
Date: 2012-08-13 15:24:18 +0000 (Mon, 13 Aug 2012)
Log Message:
-----------
fix sparse zone warning (Dago)
Modified Paths:
--------------
trunk/pkgutil
This was sent by the SourceForge.net collaborative development platform, the world's largest Open Source development site.
|
|
From: <bon...@us...> - 2012-02-21 14:58:29
|
Revision: 455
http://pkgutil.svn.sourceforge.net/pkgutil/?rev=455&view=rev
Author: bonivart
Date: 2012-02-21 14:58:19 +0000 (Tue, 21 Feb 2012)
Log Message:
-----------
create tag for 2.6.4 release
Added Paths:
-----------
tags/2.6.4/
tags/2.6.4/pkgutil
tags/2.6.4/readme
Removed Paths:
-------------
tags/2.6.4/pkgutil
tags/2.6.4/readme
This was sent by the SourceForge.net collaborative development platform, the world's largest Open Source development site.
|
|
From: <bon...@us...> - 2012-02-21 13:28:18
|
Revision: 454
http://pkgutil.svn.sourceforge.net/pkgutil/?rev=454&view=rev
Author: bonivart
Date: 2012-02-21 13:28:08 +0000 (Tue, 21 Feb 2012)
Log Message:
-----------
2.6.4: fixed version and dates
Modified Paths:
--------------
trunk/pkgutil
trunk/readme
This was sent by the SourceForge.net collaborative development platform, the world's largest Open Source development site.
|
|
From: <bon...@us...> - 2012-02-21 13:21:07
|
Revision: 453
http://pkgutil.svn.sourceforge.net/pkgutil/?rev=453&view=rev
Author: bonivart
Date: 2012-02-21 13:20:56 +0000 (Tue, 21 Feb 2012)
Log Message:
-----------
2.6.4: Fix bug in --cleanup (Laurent Blume)
Modified Paths:
--------------
trunk/pkgutil
trunk/readme
This was sent by the SourceForge.net collaborative development platform, the world's largest Open Source development site.
|
|
From: <bon...@us...> - 2012-02-20 17:17:16
|
Revision: 452
http://pkgutil.svn.sourceforge.net/pkgutil/?rev=452&view=rev
Author: bonivart
Date: 2012-02-20 17:17:10 +0000 (Mon, 20 Feb 2012)
Log Message:
-----------
pgkutil: add perl version to debug
Modified Paths:
--------------
trunk/pkgutil
This was sent by the SourceForge.net collaborative development platform, the world's largest Open Source development site.
|
|
From: <bon...@us...> - 2012-02-19 00:03:26
|
Revision: 451
http://pkgutil.svn.sourceforge.net/pkgutil/?rev=451&view=rev
Author: bonivart
Date: 2012-02-19 00:03:20 +0000 (Sun, 19 Feb 2012)
Log Message:
-----------
create tag for 2.6.3 release
Added Paths:
-----------
tags/2.6.3/
This was sent by the SourceForge.net collaborative development platform, the world's largest Open Source development site.
|
|
From: <bon...@us...> - 2012-02-17 17:49:33
|
Revision: 450
http://pkgutil.svn.sourceforge.net/pkgutil/?rev=450&view=rev
Author: bonivart
Date: 2012-02-17 17:49:22 +0000 (Fri, 17 Feb 2012)
Log Message:
-----------
2.6.3
Modified Paths:
--------------
trunk/pkgutil
trunk/readme
This was sent by the SourceForge.net collaborative development platform, the world's largest Open Source development site.
|
|
From: Adam E. <ae...@re...> - 2012-02-17 16:36:13
|
On Feb 17, 2012, at 11:26 AM, Peter Bonivart wrote: > Force is mostly about being able to install older stuff than you have > locally, e.g. if you have tried some experimental repo/package and > wants to go back to your normal one it wouldn't work because the > package version/timestamp there would be older but force solves that > by simply ignoring it. If I remember correctly it doesn't do anything > together with remove. > > Just do: > > # pkgrm CSWsvn Unfortunately I don't have sudo on pkgrm. The sys admin gave me sudo for pkgutil so I could manage the openCSW packages I need. I guess I can ask them to give me pkgrm rights temporarily. ASE |
|
From: Dagobert M. <da...@op...> - 2012-02-17 16:29:50
|
Hi Peter, Am 17.02.2012 um 17:26 schrieb Peter Bonivart: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Adam Edgar <ae...@re...> wrote: >> I have a broken dependency on svn for the aprutil library. I believe a reinstall of svn would resolve it but running >> >> sudo pkgutil -r --force CSWsvn >> >> simply spits out the following: >> >> Solving needed dependencies ... >> Looking at installed packages ... >> Examining dependencies for: >> CSWsvn (in use) >> ... >> CSWlibz1 (in use) >> Nothing to remove. >> >> >> Shouldn't --force just remove the package regardless of dependencies? I am using 2.6.2 of pkgutil BTW. > > If I remember correctly it doesn't do anything together with remove. It may more fit expectations to just remove the package, even when it has dependencies. It can also be more useful than pkgrm because you can specify a catalog name. Best regards -- Dago -- "You don't become great by trying to be great, you become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard that you become great in the process." - xkcd #896 |
|
From: Peter B. <bon...@op...> - 2012-02-17 16:27:24
|
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Adam Edgar <ae...@re...> wrote: > I have a broken dependency on svn for the aprutil library. I believe a reinstall of svn would resolve it but running > > sudo pkgutil -r --force CSWsvn > > simply spits out the following: > > Solving needed dependencies ... > Looking at installed packages ... > Examining dependencies for: > CSWsvn (in use) > ... > CSWlibz1 (in use) > Nothing to remove. > > > Shouldn't --force just remove the package regardless of dependencies? I am using 2.6.2 of pkgutil BTW. Force is mostly about being able to install older stuff than you have locally, e.g. if you have tried some experimental repo/package and wants to go back to your normal one it wouldn't work because the package version/timestamp there would be older but force solves that by simply ignoring it. If I remember correctly it doesn't do anything together with remove. Just do: # pkgrm CSWsvn # pkgutil -i CSWsvn Tip for others using the remove option in pkgutil: it can only remove packages not in use, i.e. no other package depends on it. Run the same command over and over again until nothing more can be removed because every time you remove something it can free up another package. /peter |
|
From: Adam E. <ae...@re...> - 2012-02-17 16:16:32
|
I have a broken dependency on svn for the aprutil library. I believe a reinstall of svn would resolve it but running sudo pkgutil -r --force CSWsvn simply spits out the following: Solving needed dependencies ... Looking at installed packages ... Examining dependencies for: CSWsvn (in use) CSWsasl (in use) CSWlibmagic1 (in use) CSWlibsqlite3-0 (in use) CSWlibaprutil1-0 (in use) CSWlibneon27 (in use) CSWlibgnome-keyring0 (in use) CSWcas-usergroup (in use) CSWbdb48 (in use) CSWlibsasl2-2 (in use) CSWggettext-data (in use) CSWlibapr1-0 (in use) CSWlibexpat1 (in use) CSWosslrt (in use) CSWlibssl0-9-8 (in use) CSWlibdbus (in use) CSWglib2 (in use) CSWlibcharset1 (in use) CSWcacertificates (in use) CSWlibdbus1-3 (in use) CSWgio-fam-backend (in use) CSWcas-migrateconf (in use) CSWcas-preserveconf (in use) CSWsharedmimeinfo (in use) CSWlibfam0 (in use) CSWlibgio2-0-0 (in use) CSWlibgmodule2-0-0 (in use) CSWlibgobject2-0-0 (in use) CSWlibgthread2-0-0 (in use) CSWlibiconv2 (in use) CSWlibglib2-0-0 (in use) CSWlibintl8 (in use) CSWlibxml2-2 (in use) CSWiconv (in use) CSWzlib (in use) CSWcommon (in use) CSWlibz1 (in use) Nothing to remove. Shouldn't --force just remove the package regardless of dependencies? I am using 2.6.2 of pkgutil BTW. ASE |
|
From: <bon...@us...> - 2012-02-04 14:54:13
|
Revision: 449
http://pkgutil.svn.sourceforge.net/pkgutil/?rev=449&view=rev
Author: bonivart
Date: 2012-02-04 14:54:07 +0000 (Sat, 04 Feb 2012)
Log Message:
-----------
create tag for 2.6.2 release
Added Paths:
-----------
tags/2.6.2/
tags/2.6.2/pkgutil
tags/2.6.2/pkgutil.conf
tags/2.6.2/readme
Removed Paths:
-------------
tags/2.6.2/pkgutil
tags/2.6.2/pkgutil.conf
tags/2.6.2/readme
This was sent by the SourceForge.net collaborative development platform, the world's largest Open Source development site.
|
|
From: <bon...@us...> - 2012-02-04 14:22:27
|
Revision: 448
http://pkgutil.svn.sourceforge.net/pkgutil/?rev=448&view=rev
Author: bonivart
Date: 2012-02-04 14:22:21 +0000 (Sat, 04 Feb 2012)
Log Message:
-----------
2.6.2 final
Modified Paths:
--------------
trunk/pkgutil
trunk/pkgutil.conf
trunk/readme
This was sent by the SourceForge.net collaborative development platform, the world's largest Open Source development site.
|
|
From: <bon...@us...> - 2012-02-03 09:58:42
|
Revision: 447
http://pkgutil.svn.sourceforge.net/pkgutil/?rev=447&view=rev
Author: bonivart
Date: 2012-02-03 09:58:32 +0000 (Fri, 03 Feb 2012)
Log Message:
-----------
readme: update with 2.6.2
Modified Paths:
--------------
trunk/readme
This was sent by the SourceForge.net collaborative development platform, the world's largest Open Source development site.
|
