On Tuesday 09 February 2010, Frans Pop wrote:
> This format is not (yet) allowed by policy: rootskel-gtk (>=0.05) [!s390]
I've fixed that in SVN (untested).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian
Hi Cyril,
So you're subscribed to d-boot now? :-)
On Tuesday 09 February 2010, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Frans Pop (09/02/2010):
> > This format is not (yet) allowed by policy: rootskel-gtk (>=0.05)
> > [!s390] (except for build dependencies)
>
> AFAICT, it just works, and not only for Build-Depe
Frans Pop (09/02/2010):
> This format is not (yet) allowed by policy: rootskel-gtk (>=0.05)
> [!s390] (except for build dependencies)
AFAICT, it just works, and not only for Build-Depends. It can't be
used for an arch: all package, though, since it gets substituted at
build time, so it probably w
On Tuesday 09 February 2010, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> To avoid problems in next migration I'm making the depends [!s390] but
> I want to try to get rootskel-gtk built in s390 since it has no
> technical reason to not do that.
This format is not (yet) allowed by policy: rootskel-gtk (>=0.05) [!s390
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Tuesday 09 February 2010, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Frans Pop wrote:
>> > The best alternative is to try to convince the s390 buildd admin to
>> > allow rootskel-gtk to build for s390 (good luck with that). Limi
On Tuesday 09 February 2010, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Frans Pop wrote:
> > The best alternative is to try to convince the s390 buildd admin to
> > allow rootskel-gtk to build for s390 (good luck with that). Limiting
> > the arches for cdebconf-gtk would be a bad sol
Hello,
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Frans Pop wrote:
> The best alternative is to try to convince the s390 buildd admin to allow
> rootskel-gtk to build for s390 (good luck with that). Limiting the arches
> for cdebconf-gtk would be a bad solution as it goes against general
> packaging convent
On Monday 08 February 2010, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> I'm not talking about pkg-lists but about dropping the depends. I KNOW
> it is going to work but I'm unsure if it is right to drop the depends
> line.
I know what you're talking about.
> In fact, from my POV the right would be to drop rootskel-
Hello,
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Monday 08 February 2010, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> This looks strange for me since it is not useful in other arches ATM;
>
> Huh? We DO have the pkg-lists configured so there's some variation
> depending on what type of image we're buil
On Monday 08 February 2010, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> This looks strange for me since it is not useful in other arches ATM;
Huh? We DO have the pkg-lists configured so there's some variation
depending on what type of image we're building you know...
> do you belive it is the right way to go?
The
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Monday 08 February 2010, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> Due this problem, cdebconf couldn't migrate to testing since it would
>> have a broken dependency. The logical fix is to list the architectures
>> we can support.
>
> Just drop the dependency.
On Monday 08 February 2010, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Due this problem, cdebconf couldn't migrate to testing since it would
> have a broken dependency. The logical fix is to list the architectures
> we can support.
Just drop the dependency. It's not needed as rootskel-gtk gets included in
the ini
Hello,
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Otavio Salvador
wrote:
> Author: otavio
> Date: Mon Feb 8 19:08:00 2010
> New Revision: 62202
>
> Log:
> cdebconf-gtk-udeb: limit building for amd64, i386 and powerpc.
After doing this change I think we need to decide about how to deal with it.
First th
13 matches
Mail list logo
