Re: Correct value for DEP5’s Format: field?

To: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Correct value for DEP5’s Format: field?
From: Timo Juhani Lindfors <timo.lindfors@iki.fi>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 02:18:40 +0200
Message-id: <[🔎] 84hb05684f.fsf@sauna.l.org>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20120108203835.GB2166@priya> (Andrea Bolognani's message of "Sun, 8 Jan 2012 21:38:35 +0100")
References: <[🔎] 20120108154734.GA2166@priya> <[🔎] 87pqeujcu6.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <[🔎] 20120108203835.GB2166@priya>

Andrea Bolognani <eof@kiyuko.org> writes:
> Given the situation, I guess I’ll just use the unversioned URI and hope
> DEP5 will become official soon.

Maybe put the version to a comment at least?

Reply to:

References:
- Correct value for DEP5’s Format: field?
  - From: Andrea Bolognani <eof@kiyuko.org>
- Re: Correct value for DEP5’s Format: field?
  - From: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>
- Re: Correct value for DEP5’s Format: field?
  - From: Andrea Bolognani <eof@kiyuko.org>

Prev by Date: Re: New version of autoconf-archive
Next by Date: Re: Correct value for DEP5’s Format: field?
Previous by thread: Re: Correct value for DEP5’s Format: field?
Next by thread: Re: Correct value for DEP5’s Format: field?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread