00DEV
hand-edit database for flex update
hace 24 años
a2ps
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
amd
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
analog
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
antiword
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
apache
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
apg
upgrade to APG 2.0.0b1
hace 24 años
autoconf
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
autogen
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
automake
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
axyftp
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
bash
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
bc
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
bind
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
binutils
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
bison
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
boxes
fix dependencies
hace 24 años
bzip2
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
c2man
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
calc
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
cftp
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
cpio
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
curl
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
cvs
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
cvsweb
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
db
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
dcron
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
delegate
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
dhcpd
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
diffutils
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
dmalloc
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
docbook
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
emacs
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
epm
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
exim
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
fetchmail
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
figlet
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
file
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
fileutils
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
findutils
Fix installation procedure (determined by src2make)
hace 24 años
flawfinder
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
flex
flex requires GNU make
hace 24 años
freetype
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
gated
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
gawk
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
gcc
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
gd
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
gettext
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
ghostscript
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
gimp
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
glib
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
glimpse
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
gnupg
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
graphviz
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
grep
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
grepmail
fixed group
hace 24 años
groff
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
gtk
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
guile
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
gup
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
gzip
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
heise
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
hexer
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
htdig
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
html2latex
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
imagemagick
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
imapd
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
imlib
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
indent
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
infozip
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
inn
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
instant
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
iozone
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
ircd
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
ircii
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
iselect
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
ispell
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
its4
fixed group
hace 24 años
jitterbug
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
jpeg
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
kermit
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
lame
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
less
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
lftp
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
libiconv
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
libpcap
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
libtool
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
libxml
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
libxslt
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
limo
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
links
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
lmtp2nntp
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
logsurfer
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
lrzsz
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
lsof
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
lynx
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
m4
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
magicpoint
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
mailgrep
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
majordomo
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
make
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
mc
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
minicom
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
mirror
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
mkgallery
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
mkisofs
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
mm
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
mng
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
mozilla
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
mpack
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
mpg123
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
mtools
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
mutt
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
myodbc
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
mysql
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
nail
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
nano
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
ncftp
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
ncurses
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
netcat
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
nmap
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
nntpcache
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
ntp
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
openjade
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
openldap
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
openpkg
fix bootstrap version
hace 24 años
openssh
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
openssl
fix compilation
hace 24 años
orbit
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
par
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
patch
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
pcre
Fix requirements (found by our src2make)
hace 24 años
pdksh
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
perl
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
perl-gd
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
perl-ssl
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
petidomo
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
pgp
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
php
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
pinfo
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
png
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
portsentry
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
postfix
upgrade unstable version
hace 24 años
prngd
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
procmail
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
proftpd
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
psutils
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
pth
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
pureftpd
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
python
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
qpopper
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
qt
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
rc
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
rcs
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
recode
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
rfc
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
rrdtool
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
rsync
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
ruby
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
samba
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
sasl
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
scanssh
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
screen
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
sed
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
sendmail
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
sfio
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
sgml
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
sgmlfmt
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
sharutils
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
shellutils
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
shiela
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
shtool
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
siege
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
sitecopy
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
skey
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
slang
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
smtpfeed
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
snmp
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
squid
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
ssmtp
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
str
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
strace
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
stunnel
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
suck
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
sudo
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
tar
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
tcl
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
tcpdump
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
tcsh
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
termutils
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
tetex
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
texinfo
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
textutils
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
tiff
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
tin
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
txt2man
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
txt2pdf
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
txt2regex
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
units
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
unixodbc
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
ups
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
uucp
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
uudeview
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
vim
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
w3m
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
wget
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
whatmask
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
whois
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
wml
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
xdelta
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
xmake
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
xmame
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
xterm
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
zebra
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
zlib
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
zope
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
zsh
Hmmmm.... goodbye good thought out but in practice unusable %{l_branch} variable. We have to use a static value here (implies manual editing again), because else source and binary RPM filenames won't match if binary is built one or more days after the source was rolled.
hace 24 años
00README
Initial revision
hace 24 años
Dr. Ralf S. Engelschall
cdd467b496