Maintainer: Dpkg Developers
Uploader: Hiroyuki Yamamoto
Host: leda.debian.net
Accepted: dpkg_1.16.1.2+ppc64_ppc64.changes
Files:
libdpkg-dev_1.16.1.2+ppc64_ppc64.deb
dpkg_1.16.1.2+ppc64_ppc64.deb
dselect_1.16.1.2+ppc64_ppc64.deb
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 19:53, Carsten Hey wrote:
> * David Kalnischkies [2012-02-17 14:15 +0100]:
>> You generously left out the paragraph describing how APT should
>> detect that the package foo is in fact a library ...
>
> My impression was that you think very library centric. All I wrote was
* David Kalnischkies [2012-02-17 17:20 +0100]:
> Why would it be intuitive to add a specific value for the arch attribute with
> apt-get install foo # arch |= native
> but remove all values of the attribute with
> apt-get remove foo# arch &= ~all-architectures
> ?
We had a similar discussion
* David Kalnischkies [2012-02-17 14:15 +0100]:
> You generously left out the paragraph describing how APT should
> detect that the package foo is in fact a library ...
My impression was that you think very library centric. All I wrote was
(in other words), that we should consider non-library pack
Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> David Kalnischkies wrote:
>> Why would it be intuitive to add a specific value for the arch attribute with
>> apt-get install foo # arch |= native
>> but remove all values of the attribute with
>> apt-get remove foo# arch &= ~all-architectures
>> ?
[...]
> But I real
David Kalnischkies wrote:
> Why would it be intuitive to add a specific value for the arch attribute with
> apt-get install foo # arch |= native
> but remove all values of the attribute with
> apt-get remove foo# arch &= ~all-architectures
> ?
>
> Isn't it more intuitive to have it this way:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 15:46, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> David Kalnischkies wrote:
>
>> You generously left out the paragraph describing how APT should
>> detect that the package foo is in fact a library and not, say, a
>> plugin, a dev-package, a dbg-package or a future-coinstallable binary.
>> An
David Kalnischkies wrote:
> You generously left out the paragraph describing how APT should
> detect that the package foo is in fact a library and not, say, a
> plugin, a dev-package, a dbg-package or a future-coinstallable binary.
> And the foo:* default would be okay and intuitive for all of tho
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 23:10, Carsten Hey wrote:
> * David Kalnischkies [2012-02-16 03:59 +0100]:
>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 00:39, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> >>> it needs to find and remove foo:*
>
> foo:all (or foo:any) instead of foo:* would save the need to quote it.
:all is already an archit
Carsten Hey writes:
> * Russ Allbery [2012-02-16 14:55 -0800]:
>> Every file that differs has to be fixed in the current multi-arch plan.
>> Documentation that contains its build date is going to need to be split
>> out into a separate -docs package.
> I doubt that ftpmaster would be happy about
* Russ Allbery [2012-02-16 14:55 -0800]:
> Carsten Hey writes:
> > There are still files that differ that do not need to be fixed, for
> > example documentation that contains it's build date.
>
> Every file that differs has to be fixed in the current multi-arch plan.
> Documentation that contains
11 matches
Mail list logo
