Philipp Kern writes:
> On 2009-06-22, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Philipp Kern writes:
>>> As explained lintian was wrong after I dropped the bit that
>>> collapsed "amd64 i386 all" to "any" in dpkg-source. The problem is
>>> that we lost information about what needs to be built where. "any"
>>> i
On 2009-06-22, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Philipp Kern writes:
>> As explained lintian was wrong after I dropped the bit that collapsed
>> "amd64 i386 all" to "any" in dpkg-source. The problem is that we lost
>> information about what needs to be built where. "any" if there is one
>> i386 and one al
Philipp Kern writes:
> As explained lintian was wrong after I dropped the bit that collapsed
> "amd64 i386 all" to "any" in dpkg-source. The problem is that we lost
> information about what needs to be built where. "any" if there is one
> i386 and one all binary package is just plain wrong, IMH
On 2009-06-22, Shaun Jackman wrote:
> I have a source package with two binary packages. One binary package
> is arch i386 amd64, the other is arch all containing the
> architecture-independent data files. The resulting dsc file is
> Architecture: amd64 i386 all
> which lintan complains about:
> E:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009, Shaun Jackman wrote:
> I have a source package with two binary packages. One binary package
> is arch i386 amd64, the other is arch all containing the
> architecture-independent data files. The resulting dsc file is
> Architecture: amd64 i386 all
> which lintan complains about
Shaun Jackman (21/06/2009):
> I have a source package with two binary packages. One binary package
> is arch i386 amd64, the other is arch all containing the
> architecture-independent data files. The resulting dsc file is
> Architecture: amd64 i386 all
> which lintan complains about:
> E: eagle s
6 matches
Mail list logo
