On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 02:51:20PM -0700, LaMont Jones wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 08:03:33PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>> I have no opinion on whether scsh-0.6 should be or should not be put >> in p-a-s. What I know is that: >> - Trying to build it on a 64 bit architecture is a waste of >> resources. It will not work. > But 64-bit machines are fast.. :-) >> - I am explicitly and machine-readably expressing this by not >> including any of ia64, alpha, amd64, ppc64 or s390x in the >> "Architecture:" line of the only non-"Architecture: all" package of >> the source package. > This is ignored by the buildds, until dpkg-gencontrol dies a > horrible death because of it... Out of my control. As far as I understand things, it is a bug. >> - The day it *might* work, I will change the "Architecture:" line of >> the package. I promise. For example to "Architecture: any". > If we put it in PaS, and that day comes, you'll need to request that the > entry be changed in PaS, since the buildd's will steadfastly ignore the > package once it's in PaS. > Given that, if you'd like it in PaS, I'm happy to add it for you. I have no desire to have scsh-0.6 is PaS, but if the buildd guys think it is necessary, I won't especially oppose it. -- Lionel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
