Richard Braakman writes ("Bug#41232: Bug #41232: [AMENDMENT 1999-07-23]
Build-time dependencies on binary packages"):
...
> I think something like
>package (>= 42) [i386]
> would be better. This cleanly separates two different things, and it allows
> more flexib
From: Roman Hodek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Does it run with lprng but only build with the real lpr? If so, its
>> a bug, that it doesn't compile and should be fixed. If it doesn't
>> run or compile with lprng, it should depend on the real lpr.
> I don't know if it runs with lprng But in any way
> Does it run with lprng but only build with the real lpr? If so, its
> a bug, that it doesn't compile and should be fixed. If it doesn't
> run or compile with lprng, it should depend on the real lpr.
I don't know if it runs with lprng But in any way, it can't depend
only on the real lpr, as
From: Stefan Gybas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Yes, as Roman pointed out: lprng provides lpr but some package (I
> don't remember which one it was) needs the real lpr to build, so you
> can't just say Build-Depends: lpr.
Does it run with lprng but only build with the real lpr? If so, its a
bug, that it
On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 07:57:38PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > > * If so, what syntax should we use?
> > > - My choice would be the "package (>= 42 i386)" syntax,
> > > as it's the least intrusive choice.
> >
> > allright. But allow a seperator betwee
On Sat, 7 Aug 1999, Chris Davis wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 02:18:41AM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > > If this is not acceptable, the amendment
> > > should be marked as rejected.
> >
> > > * If so, what syntax should we use?
> > > - My choice would be the "package (>
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > * If so, what syntax should we use?
> > - My choice would be the "package (>= 42 i386)" syntax,
> > as it's the least intrusive choice.
>
> allright. But allow a seperator between version number and arch, like
> "(>= 42, i386)" that's a bit easier on th
On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 11:31:16AM -0400, Chris Davis wrote:
> > > * If so, what syntax should we use?
> > > - My choice would be the "package (>= 42 i386)" syntax,
> > > as it's the least intrusive choice.
> >
> > allright. But allow a seperator between version number and arch, like
On Sat, 7 Aug 1999, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 02:18:41AM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > If this is not acceptable, the amendment
> > should be marked as rejected.
>
> > * If so, what syntax should we use?
> > - My choice would be the "package (>= 42 i38
(Note: I wrote my second reply before polling my mail, so it is a bit out of
sync to this mail :)
On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 05:33:32PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 04:08:56PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > Are you actually involved in any of our porting efforts
On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 12:57:21PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 06, 1999 at 05:00:27PM -0700, Joel Klecker wrote:
> > Well, I *need* that to represent glibc's source depends correctly.
>
> Do you?
I know that I already responded, but this is important enough for me to pull
a
On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 04:08:56PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Are you actually involved in any of our porting efforts?
No, as I don't have the required hardware.
> or at least check one of the mailing lists frequently, to learn what
> is involved.
I lurk on several Hurd lists, including de
On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 12:57:21PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 06, 1999 at 05:00:27PM -0700, Joel Klecker wrote:
> > Well, I *need* that to represent glibc's source depends correctly.
>
> Do you?
Yes, he does.
> > It'd be rediculous for a Debian GNU/HURD system to need
>
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> * Are Build-Conflicts really necessary?
> - they appear to be, reading the current list
> of build-dependencies used by sbuild.
Yes, as Roman pointed out: lprng provides lpr but some package (I don't
remember which one it was) needs the real lpr
On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 02:18:41AM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> If this is not acceptable, the amendment
> should be marked as rejected.
Na, better not. Let's hammer this one in shape now :)
> * Are Build-Conflicts really necessary?
> - they appear to be, reading the current
On Fri, Aug 06, 1999 at 05:00:27PM -0700, Joel Klecker wrote:
> Well, I *need* that to represent glibc's source depends correctly.
Do you?
> It'd be rediculous for a Debian GNU/HURD system to need
> "kernel-headers-2.2.10" to be installed for glibc's build depends to
> be satisfied, and equally
On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 02:18:41AM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> * Are Build-Conflicts really necessary?
> - they appear to be, reading the current list
> of build-dependencies used by sbuild.
Perhaps it'd be a good idea to allow them, but strongly encourage packages
not
At 02:18 +0300 1999-08-07, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
* Do we need to conditionalize the build dependencies based
on architectures?
- Joel Klecker and Marcus Brinkmann seem to think so.
I'm not convinced yet.
Well, I *need* that to represent glibc's source depends correc
The discussion period for this amendment ended on Friday, the 6th of
August, 1999. However, we don't yet have a consensus. We do seem to be
on the right track, though, so I'd like us to grant the one-time one-week
extension to this discussion period. Thus the discussion should end on
Friday, the
As required by the policy amendment guidelines, and as the proposer
of this amendment, I'm setting the discussion period to two weeks.
It started on 23th of July, 1999, when the proposal entered amendment
status, and will end on 6th of August, 1999.
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTE
20 matches
Mail list logo
