Bernhard R. Link writes ("Re: Priority dependence"):
> Calculating a dependency closure is neither an easy nor an task with
> a well-defined outcome. Starting with more data makes that both more
> easy and more likely to come to deterministic results (with a good
> eno
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:41:54PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> The difference between optional and extra is indeed mood today. But I
> guess that is mostly because dh_make is making everything optional
> instead of extra by default...
Most packages can be "optional", since they don't in
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:41:54PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Russ Allbery [100718 19:30]:
> > Ideally, it would be nice to be able to sort out packages by priority and,
> > from that, build, say, a CD set of only the important and higher packages
> > and know that it's self-contained. In
* Russ Allbery [100718 19:30]:
> Ideally, it would be nice to be able to sort out packages by priority and,
> from that, build, say, a CD set of only the important and higher packages
> and know that it's self-contained. In practice, I suspect that we have
> enough packages with problems here tha
"Steve M. Robbins" writes:
> This is due to Debian Policy 2.5:
> Packages must not depend on packages with lower priority values
> (excluding build-time dependencies). In order to ensure this, the
> priorities of one or more packages may need to be adjusted.
> Why is this the po
Hi,
The discussion surrounding why aptitude is priority 'important' [1] is
very enlightening. Thanks to all contributors.
With respect to the priority of libboost-iostreams, the consensus
seems to be to raise it.
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 02:18:52AM +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
> [ ... ] on ba
6 matches
Mail list logo
