On 20050519T153811+1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Adeodato Simó wrote:
As you probably know, entries in the Packages file only have a Source
field if the name of the source package is different from the name of
the binary package being described. This is an inconsistency that makes
it a
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Adeodato Simó wrote:
As you probably know, entries in the Packages file only have a Source
field if the name of the source package is different from the name of
the binary package being described. This is an inconsistency that makes
it a
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
As you probably know, entries in the Packages file only have a Source
field if the name of the source package is different from the name of
the binary package being described.
Why not add a patch to grep-dctrl instead?
What patch would that be?
Something equivalent
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
The detection of binary NMUs is currently, among others, using the
debian version of a package and guessing from its form. What is a
binary NMU and what not is not aparent from the Packages file. It has
been suggested to insert Source: entries pointing to the original
On 20050519T205101+1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Something equivalent to:
cat /var/lib/dpkg/available |
awk '/^Package:/ {P=$2;V=}
/^Version:/ {if (V==) { V=$2; } }
/^Source: .* (.*)/ {V=substr($3,2,length($3)-2)}
/^Source:/ {P=$2}
/^$/ { print
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
The detection of binary NMUs is currently, among others, using the
debian version of a package and guessing from its form. What is a
binary NMU and what not is not aparent from the Packages file. It has
been suggested
* Anthony Towns [Thu, 19 May 2005 15:38:11 +1000]:
Adeodato Simó wrote:
As you probably know, entries in the Packages file only have a Source
field if the name of the source package is different from the name of
the binary package being described. This is an inconsistency that makes
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 12:18:55PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
The detection of binary NMUs is currently, among others, using the
debian version of a package and guessing from its form. What is a
binary NMU and what not is not aparent from the Packages file. It has
been suggested to
Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Anthony Towns [Thu, 19 May 2005 15:38:11 +1000]:
Adeodato Simó wrote:
As you probably know, entries in the Packages file only have a Source
field if the name of the source package is different from the name of
the binary package being
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 07:34:46PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 12:18:55PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
The detection of binary NMUs is currently, among others, using the
debian version of a package and guessing from its form. What is a
binary NMU and
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 07:34:46PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 12:18:55PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
The detection of binary NMUs is currently, among others, using the
debian version of a package and guessing
Hello all,
As you probably know, entries in the Packages file only have a Source
field if the name of the source package is different from the name of
the binary package being described. This is an inconsistency that makes
it a bit harder to massage this data, e.g. with grep-dctrl.
Adeodato Simó wrote:
As you probably know, entries in the Packages file only have a Source
field if the name of the source package is different from the name of
the binary package being described. This is an inconsistency that makes
it a bit harder to massage this data, e.g. with
13 matches
Mail list logo
