 | | NQC 2.1 b2 Linux binaries + rpm (was Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | I put up a Linux binary package in tar.gz format + rpm + source in srpm format at: <URL:(URL). I'd appreciate it if folks would look at it and tell me if I've done anything stupid. (Especially in the RPM.) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 Linux binaries + rpm (was Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | Dave, a question: I notice that you don't include much documentation with your nqc packages. I'll probably leave the .tar.gz that way, but do you have any objection to me including the (HTML version of the) Programmer's Guide and User Manual in my (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 Linux binaries + rpm (was Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test) —Dave Baum
|
| | | | (...) Go right ahead. Dave Baum (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 Linux binaries + rpm (was Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) Huh. Which brings me to an interesting conceptual correctness problem with RPM -- you don't have the documentation in .tar.gz format, which is how RPM wants it. So do I cheat and make my own tar.gz containing them, or do I cheat the other way (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| | | | |
