On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 05:03:28PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 05:14:24PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> > The reason is that (as usual) we're coping with a work that doesn't belong
> > to us. If a package depends on a linux-specific one, this is the package
> > mainta
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 05:14:24PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
> The reason is that (as usual) we're coping with a work that doesn't belong
> to us. If a package depends on a linux-specific one, this is the package
> maintainer (or the Linux-based ports maintainers) who should take care about
> it
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 05:14:24PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 01:12:12PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> >
> > The right solution is of course to be able to specify patterns like
> > "*-linux-gnu".
>
> Yes, but this is a long-term solution.
Well, 4+ years, a dpkg rewr
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 01:12:12PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>
> The right solution is of course to be able to specify patterns like
> "*-linux-gnu".
Yes, but this is a long-term solution.
> so you will have a hard time convincing package
> maintainers or Debian policy that this change is d
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 11:58:02AM +, Robert Millan wrote:
> The general tendency is adding our dpkg arch to the list of _negated_ arches,
> e.g: [!hurd-i386 !freebsd-i386 !netbsd-i386].
>
> This will get weird when we have 13 arches or so, and by the time we reach
> that we'd have to send a n
Hi there,
We need to find a consensus on what to do when a package has linux-specific
build dependencies and we want to disable them for non-linux systems.
The general tendency is adding our dpkg arch to the list of _negated_ arches,
e.g: [!hurd-i386 !freebsd-i386 !netbsd-i386].
This will get w
6 matches
Mail list logo
