Gustavo Noronha Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> That would be good to be add in cdbs. I think we might want to have it
>> more flexible to allow it to work for CDDs too but I liked it very
>> much :-D
>
> It does not look right to me, though.. what about buildds? And what
> about people forge
Em Tue, 22 Aug 2006 23:47:09 -0300
Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu:
> Drew Parsons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > e.g.
> > build: test_stable patch build-stamp
> > instead of
> > build: patch build-stamp
>
> That would be good to be add in cdbs. I think we might want to have it
On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 16:51 +0200, Luca Capello wrote:
>
> If it's not my fault, however, I think we need a new package in
> experimental...
Already uploaded.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://tungstengraphics.com
Libre software enthusiast | Debian, X and
Hello!
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 20:51:56 +0200, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 03:30:07PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
>> Drew Parsons wrote:
>>> Unfortunately it's happened against, this time with the upload of
>>> xorg-server (xserver-xorg-core) 1:1.1.1-3, accidentally uploaded
>>> to unst
Drew Parsons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> e.g.
> build: test_stable patch build-stamp
> instead of
> build: patch build-stamp
That would be good to be add in cdbs. I think we might want to have it
more flexible to allow it to work for CDDs too but I liked it very
much :-D
--
O T A V
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:10:35PM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote:
> Your version requires this line to be deleted for unstable and then
> added again for any future experimental work.
>
> I prepared an alternative snippet by which the test can remain, and
> switched off by an explicit extra variable s
Denis Barbier wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 11:08:49AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Drew Parsons ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060822 11:04]:
> > > 2) [technical] Remove the single point of failure by adding a
> > > Distribution: field to debian/control, say. The package will be
> > > rejected if t
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 06:42:46PM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote:
> The Dear Project Leader wrote:
> > Yesterday, glibc 2.3.999.2-10 was accidently uploaded to unstable instead
> > of experimental, and on the request of the release managers, I UNACCEPTed
> > it, given it was a major accidental change t
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 03:30:07PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Drew Parsons wrote:
> > Unfortunately it's happened against, this time with the upload of
> > xorg-server (xserver-xorg-core) 1:1.1.1-3, accidentally uploaded to
> > unstable instead of experimental. An easy enough mistake, it's only
> >
Drew Parsons wrote:
> Unfortunately it's happened against, this time with the upload of
> xorg-server (xserver-xorg-core) 1:1.1.1-3, accidentally uploaded to
> unstable instead of experimental. An easy enough mistake, it's only
> one little field in a changelog file.
'2:' is not any worse than '1
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 11:08:49AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Drew Parsons ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060822 11:04]:
> > 2) [technical] Remove the single point of failure by adding a
> > Distribution: field to debian/control, say. The package will be
> > rejected if the two fields in control and ch
Drew Parsons a écrit :
The Dear Project Leader wrote:
Yesterday, glibc 2.3.999.2-10 was accidently uploaded to unstable instead
of experimental, and on the request of the release managers, I UNACCEPTed
it, given it was a major accidental change to a rather core library just
as that library shoul
* Drew Parsons ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060822 11:04]:
> 2) [technical] Remove the single point of failure by adding a
> Distribution: field to debian/control, say. The package will be
> rejected if the two fields in control and changelog do not match.
or just make dpkg-buildpackage fail if that happ
The Dear Project Leader wrote:
> Yesterday, glibc 2.3.999.2-10 was accidently uploaded to unstable instead
> of experimental, and on the request of the release managers, I UNACCEPTed
> it, given it was a major accidental change to a rather core library just
> as that library should've been frozen.
14 matches
Mail list logo
