On Mon, Oct 17, 2011, Arnaud Patard wrote:
> iirc, w-b is still using p-a-s but for sure, it would be better to
> handle it on package debian/control side imho.
> btw, I thought that p-a-s was also used to prevent a package to be built
> on some arch, even if it was building on it (for instance, bu
Loïc Minier writes:
> Hi there
Hi,
>
> Until recent times, Debian/Ubuntu would list packages which shouldn't
> be built on this or that architecture in a file called
> Packages-arch-specific; the mirrored history of this file can be
> browsed at:
> http://anonscm.debian.org/gitw
Hello,
2011/10/17 Loïc Minier :
> * linux-kernel-di-armel-2.6, linux-modules-di-armel-2.6: these are
> specific to d-i; there's a linux-kernel-di-armhf-2.6 in debian-ports,
> but not linux-modules-di-armhf-2.6 yet; the -armhf- packages
> probably don't need to be added to P-a-s as the pack
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011, Loïc Minier wrote:
> I still need to update the Debian wiki page with the above
updated http://wiki.debian.org/ArmHardFloatTodo
Other ways to improve P-a-s for armhf:
- add packages to P-a-s which are listed as architecture: any but
really aren't for armhf devices
-
Hi there
Until recent times, Debian/Ubuntu would list packages which shouldn't
be built on this or that architecture in a file called
Packages-arch-specific; the mirrored history of this file can be
browsed at:
http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=mirror/packages-arch-specific.git
5 matches
Mail list logo
