Hi,
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > If this needs 2 dpkg calls, one for removing, one for reinstalling then
> > I'm flat out against it. That would harm all the reverse depends and
> > cause significant blockage on upgrades.
>
> No, that's what 'dpkg --remove --force-depends' is f
Signed-off-by: Andrea Gelmini
---
lib/dpkg/path.c |1 -
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/dpkg/path.c b/lib/dpkg/path.c
index b2c958b..cdb77b3 100644
--- a/lib/dpkg/path.c
+++ b/lib/dpkg/path.c
@@ -22,7 +22,6 @@
#include
#include
-#include
#include
#
+++ Guillem Jover [2011-02-18 11:13 +0100]:
Guillem makes some good points about how GNU triplets should (and once
did) represent ABIs, and that if they still did, dpkg (and everything
else) could use them as the definitive ABI-indicator. He's quite
right.
_Something_ has to stand as nomenclatur
+++ Steve Langasek [2011-02-18 17:36 -0800]:
> > * The remaining problem at least for multiarch is the use of more
> > specialized cpu names for the i386 triplets, i486-linux-gnu on Debian,
> > which might change depending on the base instruction set to support,
> > for example i686-linux-gnu
Hi!
On Sun, 2011-02-20 at 22:28:44 +0100, Andrea Gelmini wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Andrea Gelmini
> ---
> lib/dpkg/path.c |1 -
> 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/dpkg/path.c b/lib/dpkg/path.c
> index b2c958b..cdb77b3 100644
> --- a/lib/dpkg/path.c
> +++ b
[ Sorry for entangling the armhf bug with the i386 stuff, subsequent
replies should probably remove debian-arm and the bug report from
them. ]
On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 13:30:19 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 18.02.2011 11:13, Guillem Jover wrote:
> >[ CCing Matthias, as I'd like your opinion o
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 02:22:44AM +, Wookey wrote:
> > The challenge, as Matthias points out, is that these triplets are already so
> > entrenched and there is so much software that handles x86 specially - even
> > if incorrectly! - that it's prohibitive to switch back to i386-linux-gnu as
>
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 07:32:19AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Given the above we'd need to either switch to i586-linux-gnu or
> i386-linux-gnu, it seems to me both will imply the same amount of
> changes? And thus going for the latter seems the correct solution,
> it matches with the other arch
8 matches
Mail list logo
