On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 08:49:30AM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
>
> Right, but it seems policy does not allow a contrib source package to
> put binaries in both contrib and main. It's a policy issue, not a
> technical one: if a package is "tainted" with a non-free build-dep or
> dep for a sin
On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 08:49:30AM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
>
> Right, but it seems policy does not allow a contrib source package to
> put binaries in both contrib and main. It's a policy issue, not a
> technical one: if a package is "tainted" with a non-free build-dep or
> dep for a si
Nicolas Boullis wrote:
On Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 09:49:29PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
Can I "Build-Depends: ccc [alpha], cfal [alpha]" and still have the
source package in main?
No, that would violate policy (2.1.2).
Right, thanks for pointing this out (I need to RTFP :-). So the source
Nicolas Boullis wrote:
>On Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 09:49:29PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
>
Can I "Build-Depends: ccc [alpha], cfal [alpha]" and still have the
source package in main?
>>>No, that would violate policy (2.1.2).
>>>
>>Right, thanks for pointing this out (I need to RTFP
On Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 09:49:29PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> James Troup wrote:
>
> >Adam C Powell IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >>Can I "Build-Depends: ccc [alpha], cfal [alpha]" and still have the
> >>source package in main?
> >>
> >No, that would violate policy (2.1.2).
> >
> Righ
On Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 09:49:29PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> James Troup wrote:
>
> >Adam C Powell IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >>Can I "Build-Depends: ccc [alpha], cfal [alpha]" and still have the
> >>source package in main?
> >>
> >No, that would violate policy (2.1.2).
> >
> Rig
On Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 09:49:29PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> >>Can I "Build-Depends: ccc [alpha], cfal [alpha]" and still have the
> >>source package in main?
> >>
> >No, that would violate policy (2.1.2).
> >
> Right, thanks for pointing this out (I need to RTFP :-). So the source
> would
James Troup wrote:
Adam C Powell IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Can I "Build-Depends: ccc [alpha], cfal [alpha]" and still have the
source package in main?
No, that would violate policy (2.1.2).
Right, thanks for pointing this out (I need to RTFP :-). So the source
would become contrib, b
On Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 09:49:29PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> >>Can I "Build-Depends: ccc [alpha], cfal [alpha]" and still have the
> >>source package in main?
> >>
> >No, that would violate policy (2.1.2).
> >
> Right, thanks for pointing this out (I need to RTFP :-). So the source
> woul
Adam C Powell IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can I "Build-Depends: ccc [alpha], cfal [alpha]" and still have the
> source package in main?
No, that would violate policy (2.1.2).
--
James
James Troup wrote:
>Adam C Powell IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>Can I "Build-Depends: ccc [alpha], cfal [alpha]" and still have the
>>source package in main?
>>
>No, that would violate policy (2.1.2).
>
Right, thanks for pointing this out (I need to RTFP :-). So the source
would become con
Greetings,
Having got the non-free cfal (Compaq Fortran for Linux Alpha, yes, the
acronym is backwards :-) compiler to work using my contrib Debian
packaging (realplayer-style RPM unpacker), I built PETSc using it, and
WOW, is it FAST! On a 600 MHz ev5, it is more than 2.5 times as fast
per
Adam C Powell IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can I "Build-Depends: ccc [alpha], cfal [alpha]" and still have the
> source package in main?
No, that would violate policy (2.1.2).
--
James
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
Greetings,
Having got the non-free cfal (Compaq Fortran for Linux Alpha, yes, the
acronym is backwards :-) compiler to work using my contrib Debian
packaging (realplayer-style RPM unpacker), I built PETSc using it, and
WOW, is it FAST! On a 600 MHz ev5, it is more than 2.5 times as fast
per
14 matches
Mail list logo
