* Matthew Twomey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
> Must all packages be maintained primarily in i386 format? I have a SPARC
> platform and was considering the idea of contributing to Debian through
> package management. Would I need to set up an i386 based system in
> addition to my Debian SPARC?
>
n
> > I have been working on a particular package on my workstation, which runs
> > Sid. Now, I was some days away from my office, and had only my laptop
> > (Potato). As my package is not too complicated, I decided to modify it to
> > be built with Potato successfully - As I guessed, it was fairly e
>>
>> - In control, I decreased the standards-version from 3.5.2 to 3.0.1
>
> My question may be stupid, but is it really useful to decrease the
> stardards-version ? I know that potato's lintian issues a warning for
> "newer-standards-version", but it sounds rather pointless when
> backporting a
Hi!
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 04:01:49PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have been working on a particular package on my workstation, which runs
> Sid. Now, I was some days away from my office, and had only my laptop
> (Potato). As my package is not too complicated, I decided to modify it to
Matt Zimmerman dijo:
> That description needs to be clarified...when a bug is tagged pending,
> it is listed on the BTS web pages as "pending upload", which implies
> that the bug has been fixed, but the fix is not yet uploaded. This is
> useful information to have, and seems to be the general con
On Mon, 01 Apr 2002, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> On 01-Apr-2002 Will Newton wrote:
> > Is it acceptable to downgrade a serious bug to important if it is a build
> > error on an arch that has never built correctly in the past?
> >
> > The problem is being worked on, it's just taking a little time
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 04:01:49PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> dpkg-deb: parse error, in file `debian/tutos/DEBIAN/control' near line 7
> package `tutos':
> `Depends' field, missing package name, or garbage where package name expected
> dh_builddeb: command returned error code
> make: *** [binary
> > I have been working on a particular package on my workstation, which runs
> > Sid. Now, I was some days away from my office, and had only my laptop
> > (Potato). As my package is not too complicated, I decided to modify it to
> > be built with Potato successfully - As I guessed, it was fairly
>>
>> - In control, I decreased the standards-version from 3.5.2 to 3.0.1
>
> My question may be stupid, but is it really useful to decrease the
> stardards-version ? I know that potato's lintian issues a warning for
> "newer-standards-version", but it sounds rather pointless when
> backporting
On Mon, 1 Apr 2002, Matthew Twomey wrote:
> Must all packages be maintained primarily in i386 format? I have a SPARC
> platform and was considering the idea of contributing to Debian through
> package management. Would I need to set up an i386 based system in
> addition to my Debian SPARC?
No, ma
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 04:49:40PM -0600, Matthew Twomey wrote:
> Must all packages be maintained primarily in i386 format?
No, a number of people upload on other architectures. There's an i386
autobuilder which picks up the differences.
> I have a SPARC platform and was considering the idea of c
On 01-Apr-2002 Matthew Twomey wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Must all packages be maintained primarily in i386 format? I have a SPARC
> platform and was considering the idea of contributing to Debian through
> package management. Would I need to set up an i386 based
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Must all packages be maintained primarily in i386 format? I have a SPARC
platform and was considering the idea of contributing to Debian through
package management. Would I need to set up an i386 based system in
addition to my Debian SPARC?
- -Matt
--
Hi!
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 04:01:49PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have been working on a particular package on my workstation, which runs
> Sid. Now, I was some days away from my office, and had only my laptop
> (Potato). As my package is not too complicated, I decided to modify it to
Matt Zimmerman dijo:
> That description needs to be clarified...when a bug is tagged pending,
> it is listed on the BTS web pages as "pending upload", which implies
> that the bug has been fixed, but the fix is not yet uploaded. This is
> useful information to have, and seems to be the general co
On Mon, 01 Apr 2002, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> On 01-Apr-2002 Will Newton wrote:
> > Is it acceptable to downgrade a serious bug to important if it is a build
> > error on an arch that has never built correctly in the past?
> >
> > The problem is being worked on, it's just taking a little tim
>
> I thought the main problem was this strange combination - I removed it to
> no avail, and fiddled with the line until I got the problem: I removed the
> first dependency (${shlibs:Depends}), and it worked correctly.
>
> I have always seen this thing in the dependencies, and I still don't know
Hi,
I have been working on a particular package on my workstation, which runs
Sid. Now, I was some days away from my office, and had only my laptop
(Potato). As my package is not too complicated, I decided to modify it to
be built with Potato successfully - As I guessed, it was fairly easy...
The
On 01-Apr-2002 Will Newton wrote:
>
> Is it acceptable to downgrade a serious bug to important if it is a build
> error on an arch that has never built correctly in the past?
>
> The problem is being worked on, it's just taking a little time, and I see no
> reason to make users of another arch
Is it acceptable to downgrade a serious bug to important if it is a build
error on an arch that has never built correctly in the past?
The problem is being worked on, it's just taking a little time, and I see no
reason to make users of another architecture suffer because of this.
--
To UNSUB
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 04:01:49PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> dpkg-deb: parse error, in file `debian/tutos/DEBIAN/control' near line 7 package
>`tutos':
> `Depends' field, missing package name, or garbage where package name expected
> dh_builddeb: command returned error code
> make: *** [binary
On Mon, 1 Apr 2002, Matthew Twomey wrote:
> Must all packages be maintained primarily in i386 format? I have a SPARC
> platform and was considering the idea of contributing to Debian through
> package management. Would I need to set up an i386 based system in
> addition to my Debian SPARC?
No, m
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 04:49:40PM -0600, Matthew Twomey wrote:
> Must all packages be maintained primarily in i386 format?
No, a number of people upload on other architectures. There's an i386
autobuilder which picks up the differences.
> I have a SPARC platform and was considering the idea of
On 01-Apr-2002 Matthew Twomey wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Must all packages be maintained primarily in i386 format? I have a SPARC
> platform and was considering the idea of contributing to Debian through
> package management. Would I need to set up an i386 based
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Must all packages be maintained primarily in i386 format? I have a SPARC
platform and was considering the idea of contributing to Debian through
package management. Would I need to set up an i386 based system in
addition to my Debian SPARC?
- -Matt
-
>
> I thought the main problem was this strange combination - I removed it to
> no avail, and fiddled with the line until I got the problem: I removed the
> first dependency (${shlibs:Depends}), and it worked correctly.
>
> I have always seen this thing in the dependencies, and I still don't kno
Akdeniz Göz Merkezi her zaman oldugu gibi tum lens cesitlerini en uygun
fiyatlarla sizlere sunmaktadir.
Ustelik bir telefon yada e-mail ile adresinize teslim.
AKDENIZ GOZ MERKEZI www.akdenizgoz.com
Fevzipasa cad. No:73 Fatih / Istanbul 0 212 635 74 74
Bausch
Hi,
I have been working on a particular package on my workstation, which runs
Sid. Now, I was some days away from my office, and had only my laptop
(Potato). As my package is not too complicated, I decided to modify it to
be built with Potato successfully - As I guessed, it was fairly easy...
The
On 01-Apr-2002 Will Newton wrote:
>
> Is it acceptable to downgrade a serious bug to important if it is a build
> error on an arch that has never built correctly in the past?
>
> The problem is being worked on, it's just taking a little time, and I see no
> reason to make users of another arc
Is it acceptable to downgrade a serious bug to important if it is a build
error on an arch that has never built correctly in the past?
The problem is being worked on, it's just taking a little time, and I see no
reason to make users of another architecture suffer because of this.
--
To UNSU
Akdeniz Göz Merkezi her zaman oldugu gibi tum lens cesitlerini en uygun
fiyatlarla sizlere sunmaktadir.
Ustelik bir telefon yada e-mail ile adresinize teslim.
AKDENIZ GOZ MERKEZI www.akdenizgoz.com
Fevzipasa cad. No:73 Fatih / Istanbul 0 212 635 74 74
Bausch
31 matches
Mail list logo
