Bug#770109: eatmydata should not depend on dpkg-dev

On Freitag, 21. November 2014, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > I'll try to get it into jessie, due to #765810 > Tomorrow I'll work on this, and upload a package to experimental, then I'll > ask for pre-approval to the release team, and if granted an unstable upload > will follow. great, thanks! Feel free

Bug#770109: eatmydata should not depend on dpkg-dev

On Fri Nov 21 2014 at 5:45:34 PM Holger Levsen wrote: > On Dienstag, 18. November 2014, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > > Anyway, don't worry. It will go away in the two next uploads. > > but not for jessie, I assume? > :-( > I'll try to get it into jessie, due to #765810 Tomorrow I'll work on this, a

Bug#770109: eatmydata should not depend on dpkg-dev

On Dienstag, 18. November 2014, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > Anyway, don't worry. It will go away in the two next uploads. but not for jessie, I assume? :-( I'm asking due to #766921 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Bug#770109: eatmydata should not depend on dpkg-dev

19.11.2014 01:17, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Tue Nov 18 2014 at 11:09:15 PM Michael Tokarev > wrote: > > This is sort of insane - using dpkg-dev just to get current > architecture. dpkg-dev pulls in binutils, some perl stuff, > patch, others -- 27 extra megaby

Bug#770109: eatmydata should not depend on dpkg-dev

On Tue Nov 18 2014 at 11:09:15 PM Michael Tokarev wrote: > This is sort of insane - using dpkg-dev just to get current > architecture. dpkg-dev pulls in binutils, some perl stuff, > patch, others -- 27 extra megabytes. I use it on systems > with a highly space-constrained flash-based storage

Bug#770109: eatmydata should not depend on dpkg-dev

Package: eatmydata Version: 82-2 Severity: normal This is sort of insane - using dpkg-dev just to get current architecture. dpkg-dev pulls in binutils, some perl stuff, patch, others -- 27 extra megabytes. I use it on systems with a highly space-constrained flash-based storage to keep the storag