On 26.11.2013 19:55, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Sandro Mani wrote:
[1] http://smani.fedorapeople.org/somepackage.spec
Yeah, that hack looks like it could work, sorta. If you have multiple
subpackages installed, having only one subpackage of the correct version and
the others of wrong versions will st
On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 11:39:38 +0100, Sandro Mani wrote:
> Here is a quick and dirty spec implementing the idea I described:
> [1]. From what I can see it behaves correctly with any combination
> of packages and subpackages installed. Am I missing something?
> [1] http://smani.fedorapeople.org/somepa
Sandro Mani wrote:
> [1] http://smani.fedorapeople.org/somepackage.spec
Yeah, that hack looks like it could work, sorta. If you have multiple
subpackages installed, having only one subpackage of the correct version and
the others of wrong versions will still be satisfying the dependency in the
On 26.11.2013 11:50, Christopher Meng wrote:
Isn't it should be implemented implicitly in RPM?
It is just a proof of concept/idea. Will hardly be implemented like
this, if something similar is going to be implemented.
Sandro
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fe
On 26.11.2013 11:50, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le Mar 26 novembre 2013 03:55, Kevin Kofler a écrit :
Jan Kratochvil wrote:
There were multiple Bugs suggesting the same, they are linked together
for
example from this one from 2005. But it all got WONTFIXed:
Debug info RPMs do not "require" exact
Isn't it should be implemented implicitly in RPM?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Le Mar 26 novembre 2013 03:55, Kevin Kofler a écrit :
> Jan Kratochvil wrote:
>> There were multiple Bugs suggesting the same, they are linked together
>> for
>> example from this one from 2005. But it all got WONTFIXed:
>> Debug info RPMs do not "require" exact maching binary rpm
>> https://bugz
On 26.11.2013 03:55, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jan Kratochvil wrote:
There were multiple Bugs suggesting the same, they are linked together for
example from this one from 2005. But it all got WONTFIXed:
Debug info RPMs do not "require" exact maching binary rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cg
Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> There were multiple Bugs suggesting the same, they are linked together for
> example from this one from 2005. But it all got WONTFIXed:
> Debug info RPMs do not "require" exact maching binary rpm
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=151598
The problem with those d
On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 16:50:51 +0100, Sandro Mani wrote:
> A nice solution to ensure consistency could be to have each
> debuginfo package require the exact version of the base package
> installed. Since the debuginfo package however cannot know which
> base (sub)package it should depend on, I wonder
On 24.11.2013 21:52, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 16:50:51 +0100, Sandro Mani wrote:
Hi,
I wondered what the reason is that debuginfo packages seem to enter the
repos only at the successive push compared to the regular packages,
which ultimately means that debuginfo packages ar
On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 16:50:51 +0100, Sandro Mani wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wondered what the reason is that debuginfo packages seem to enter the
> repos only at the successive push compared to the regular packages,
> which ultimately means that debuginfo packages are available in updates
> ca 1 day af
On 11/24/2013 10:51 AM, Josh Stone wrote:
> On 11/24/2013 09:13 AM, Sandro Mani wrote:
>> Oh, I never noticed this! I take the reason the debuginfo packages do
>> not live in the "normal" repos is that one wants to reduce the
>> repodata/filelist size? Could the current situation be improved by a
On 11/24/2013 09:13 AM, Sandro Mani wrote:
> Oh, I never noticed this! I take the reason the debuginfo packages do
> not live in the "normal" repos is that one wants to reduce the
> repodata/filelist size? Could the current situation be improved by an
> approach similar to:
> - Move the debuginf
On 24.11.2013 17:55, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Sun, 2013-11-24 at 16:50 +0100, Sandro Mani wrote:
From abrt-reported bugs where
people generate the backtraces locally, it occasionally happens that
they send incomplete backtraces due to mismatching debugsymbols, and
it
would certainly help in
On Sun, 2013-11-24 at 16:50 +0100, Sandro Mani wrote:
> From abrt-reported bugs where
> people generate the backtraces locally, it occasionally happens that
> they send incomplete backtraces due to mismatching debugsymbols, and
> it
> would certainly help increasing the quality of backtraces if
Hi,
I wondered what the reason is that debuginfo packages seem to enter the
repos only at the successive push compared to the regular packages,
which ultimately means that debuginfo packages are available in updates
ca 1 day after the regular packages. From abrt-reported bugs where
people gen
17 matches
Mail list logo
