On Thu, Dec 13, 2007, Riku Voipio wrote:
> Looking at current build-deps of gst-plugins-base0.10, I take it
> requires a sourcefull upload and a binNMU won't be enough?
(Did a sourceful upload yesterday evening.)
--
Loïc Minier
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 12:34:14PM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2007, Joey Hess wrote:
> > gst-plugins-base0.10
> This seems to be a bug in type-handling as "type-handling any linux-gnu
> linux" used to list armel (as I can see in previous versions of the
> control file), but doe
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007, Loïc Minier wrote:
> Bug filed.
Fixed in type-handling 0.2.23.
--
Loïc Minier
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In general, is is feasible to move the Architectures: field on so that
you can say
"!sparc" or "any !sparc" or something? I remember that a lot of the
port creation faff is going through all the packages that list every
architecture except one or two.
It would ease the job every time a new archite
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007, Joey Hess wrote:
> gst-plugins-base0.10
This seems to be a bug in type-handling as "type-handling any linux-gnu
linux" used to list armel (as I can see in previous versions of the
control file), but doesn't list it anymore with 0.2.22.
Bug filed.
--
Loïc Minier
--
T
Hi,
On Fri, 2007-12-07 at 17:25:05 -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> This is a list of packages that build-depend/conflict with something on
> arm, but not on armel. I've fltered out obvious cases where arm and
> armel are meant to differ, but haven't investigated everything
> thuroughly. Most of these ar
Martin Guy wrote:
> Nice analysis! Do we get the source that generated it, or was it a
> one-time editor hack? :)
Yes, it was less *Sources and searching for .*-Depends.*arm and then
reading..
> I've copied your list to wiki.debian.org/ArmEabiProblems inviting
> people to investigate the packages
2007/12/7, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This is a list of packages that build-depend/conflict with something on
> arm, but not on armel.
Nice analysis! Do we get the source that generated it, or was it a
one-time editor hack? :)
I've copied your list to wiki.debian.org/ArmEabiProblems invitin
This is a list of packages that build-depend/conflict with something on
arm, but not on armel. I've fltered out obvious cases where arm and
armel are meant to differ, but haven't investigated everything
thuroughly. Most of these are of the form
"[long list of arches including arm]" or "[!arm]" and
9 matches
Mail list logo
