Hi Holger, > > do you mean svk (as per subject of this mail) or etcinsvk (as per package to > which this bug belongs)? > > etcinsvk is maintained fine (but etckeeper is probably a better alternative), > svk on the other hand is free to adopt. are you interested? > My fault! I was talking about 'etcinsvk' (sorry for the mess). I'm currently using etckeeper. Everybody says that maybe it's a better alternative, AFAIK doesn't support SVN , so it's not the better alternative for me right now! :( Thanks for your time. Cheers. -- Dario Minnucci <midget@debian.org> Phone: +34 902021030 | Fax: +34 902024417 | Support: +34 807450000 Key fingerprint = 62FF F60F CE79 9CE4 EBA8 523F FC84 1B2D 82C8 B711
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature