Hey Paul, thx for clarification. I have overseen your response.
Hefee -- On Sonntag, 29. Dezember 2024 06:28:24 MEZ Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote: > Hey Hefee > > I also filed a bug with my comments from the RM, then I closed it in the > morning because I realized I was wrong. Please ignore that bug and my > previous comments. It's all fine. Sorry about that, it's my fault. > > Paul > > On Sat, Dec 28, 2024, 9:38 PM Hefee <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hey, > > > > thx for removing the bits from unstable to let nextcoud-desktop migrate to > > testing! > > > > I'm a bit puzzled what to do with your response: > > > but as a result, it: > > > > > > # Broken Depends: > > > nextcloud-desktop: caja-nextcloud > > > > > > nautilus-nextcloud > > > nemo-nextcloud > > > > > > Please fix this relationship by arch constraining it and uploading the > > > > new > > > > > package. I moved this rm forward since this removal broke "yourself", > > > but > > > this needs to be fixed, > > > > Okay my analysis so far, but I'm still a newbie in the Multi-Arch world: > > > > all those mentioned three packages are arch all and multi-Arch foreign, as > > they only ship one python file and created by the same source than the > > other > > binaries you deleted. They talk to nextcloud-desktop via dbus interface. > > > > IMO you can still run the python script successfully on mips64el , if you > > make > > sure, that nextcloud-desktop in a correct version is installed and you run > > it > > on a different arch. > > > > Also as all three packages make sure, that you need an uptodate nextcloud- > > desktop (<< 3.15.0-1.1~ and >= 3.15.0-1). That makes sure that existing > > installations simply won't update caja-nextcloud etc. > > > > Why do you think I need additionally limit the archs in the Depends filed? > > IMO > > the version constrain is already enough. But maybe I missing some > > aspects... > > > > Regards > > > > hefee
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
