You can not select more than 25 topics Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dr. Ralf S. Engelschall 5ed69c7ec5 Add our brand-new .src.rpm to Makefile generator 24 years ago
00DEV Add our brand-new .src.rpm to Makefile generator 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
apg 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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
boxes fix dependencies 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
findutils Fix installation procedure (determined by src2make) 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
flex 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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
grepmail 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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
its4 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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
openpkg fix bootstrap version 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
openssl fix compilation 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
pcre Fix requirements (found by our src2make) 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
postfix 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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
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. 24 years ago
00README Initial revision 24 years ago