<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 1:33 AM, Robby Workman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rworkman@slackbuilds.org">rworkman@slackbuilds.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 10:02:24 +0200<br>
emmel <<a href="mailto:the_emmel@gmx.net">the_emmel@gmx.net</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Just wanted to mention: 10.61 is out. Or should I mail<br>
> that directly to the maintainer?<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>Probably it should go to MAINTAINER, but since that's me,<br>
I suppose it doesn't matter either way. :-) The update<br>
has been submitted...<br>
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
> Anyway, I was wondering why we are still repacking<br>
> the RPM and not use the .tar.bz2...<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>Write a build script for tar.bz2, and then compare the<br>
number of lines and amount of complexity relative to the<br>
one for the rpm. You'll have your answer then :-)<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
-RW<br>
</font><br><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Agree with RW. Since 10.50 build 6252, Opera has changed its packaging way.</div><div>FYI <a href="http://my.opera.com/ruario/blog/new-opera-unix-packages-arrive-deb-rpm-tar">http://my.opera.com/ruario/blog/new-opera-unix-packages-arrive-deb-rpm-tar</a> </div>
</div><br>-- <br>Free as freedom, slack as Slackware.<br>vvoody<br>