Hi Paul,
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 12:19:38AM -0600, Paul Johnson wrote:
> However, some packages don't remove their own files (or, at least,
> they don't get it done for me). In the packaging, there are multilib
> instructions, to assure the removal of files from /usr/lib when the
> new are instal
Le Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 08:36:56AM +0100, Andreas Tille a écrit :
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 09:00:49AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
>
> > By the way, are there differences with the syntax of the Files field ?
>
> Not any more (hopefully) since I droped the `find -name` approach which
> turned ou
Le Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 03:58:31AM +0100, Guillem Jover a écrit :
>
> On Thu, 2013-01-10 at 07:32:54 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> >
> >
> > Multiline field listing all the packages that can be built from
> > the source package, considering every architecture.
On 11/01/13 12:05, Charles Plessy wrote:
> + separated by spaces. Other space-separated values may be added.
Who may add (define) them?
I assume the intention here is that (using RFC 2119 language for
clarity) readers of a .dsc MUST allow (and ignore) fifth and subsequent
space-separat
Hi Charles,
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 08:39:41PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > Not any more (hopefully) since I droped the `find -name` approach which
> > turned out as insufficient (even if very attractive in the first place).
>
> Hi Andreas,
>
> In that case, the field in mothur's copyright
On Fri, 2013-01-11 at 21:05:21 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 03:58:31AM +0100, Guillem Jover a écrit :
> > It will only list binary packages, not all the information for the
> > source package is currently available from other fields in the .dsc
> > file, but it could be ex
Now I see, thanks a lot for your answer
Nick
--
=Do-
N.AND
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/cann5kouix-dlj6xnfqqeftnmzdxo1dtm7ebege6eauftywc...@mail.g
[ dropping -www, setting Mail-Followup-To: cut-team ]
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 04:06:00PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > On 01/05/2013 01:28 AM, alberto fuentes wrote:
> >> The few people on the list seems happy with it. If this is working
+++ Steve Langasek [2013-01-11 00:13 -0800]:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 12:19:38AM -0600, Paul Johnson wrote:
Paul. 'multilib' is actually something (a bit) different.
You mean 'multiarch' throughout.
> > However, some packages don't remove their own files (or, at least,
> > they don
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 03:14:14PM +, Wookey wrote:
> You may be right steve, but I've seen a similar issue in fresh
> chroots. I haven't yet got to the bottom of exactly what was going on,
> but it's mentioned here:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=696267
>
> Talking about (
Best wishes to all readers for the new year.
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 11:13:16PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> From my point of view we should now discuss first what way to
> prefer: Either the 'Files-Excluded' field or 'License:
> not-shipped-by-debian' should be used and we should decide now
> be
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jonas Smedegaard
* Package name: node-raptor
Version : 0~0git20130108
Upstream Author : Norman Heino
* URL : https://github.com/0xfeedface/node_raptor
* License : Apache-2.0
Programming Lang: C
Description : Node
Package: wnpp
Owner: Salvatore Bonaccorso
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org,debian-p...@lists.debian.org
* Package name: libapp-prereqgrapher-perl
Version : 0.6
Upstream Author : Neil Bowers
* URL : https://metacpan.org/release/App-PrereqG
Hi Group!
I would like to ask why most arch have 4:4.6.3-8 instead of 4:4.7.2-1[0].
Is it because:
- Some (many) packages do not compile?
- Some (many) packages produce crashes?
- There was simply not enough time? If this is the reason: Is there any
chance it will be updated before release?
I co
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 18:43:26 +0100
Markus Raab wrote:
> I would like to ask why most arch have 4:4.6.3-8 instead of 4:4.7.2-1[0].
http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2012/05/msg00175.html
> Is it because:
> - Some (many) packages do not compile?
>500 packages failed when gcc-4.7 was first u
Quoting Nicolas Boulenguez (2013-01-11 17:51:20)
> Before renouncing to a consistent use of the format expressivity for
> documentation of upstream files licence or removal, I would like your
> first reactions about modifying the format towards the direction
> suggested by this pseudo-patch.
[p
Quoting Markus Raab (use...@markus-raab.org):
> Hi Group!
>
> I would like to ask why most arch have 4:4.6.3-8 instead of 4:4.7.2-1[0].
> Is it because:
> - Some (many) packages do not compile?
> - Some (many) packages produce crashes?
> - There was simply not enough time? If this is the reason: I
Quoting Andreas Tille (2013-01-11 13:36:19)
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 08:39:41PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > > Not any more (hopefully) since I droped the `find -name` approach
> > > which turned out as insufficient (even if very attractive in the
> > > first place).
> > In that case, the f
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 2:13 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 12:19:38AM -0600, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> However, some packages don't remove their own files (or, at least,
>> they don't get it done for me). In the packaging, there are multilib
>> instructions, to ass
On Jan 11, 2013, at 7:05 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> I probably should have already sent a message a while ago on this, but
>> yes the monthly snapshots have been put on hiatus during the freeze.
>> The official d-i betas and release candidates are recommended now so
>> that they get suffici
Hi all,
here is a new version trying to addres Simon's and Guillem's comments.
By the way, isn't "Package-Type: udeb" completely redundant with "Section:
debian-installer" ?
Have a nice week-end,
-- Charles
@@ -2671,6 +2671,7 @@ Package: libc6
Description
(mandatory)
H
21 matches
Mail list logo
