Thanks for the patch, I've just uploaded it to unstable.
Michael, I understand that you have some free cycles to take care of the unblock
requests with the release team?
Thanks to every involved here!
Reinhard
On 10.11.2014 08:56, Stefan Hengelein wrote:
I've attached a patch that enables the
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 12:52:13 -0500, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
That doesn't sound like a bad idea at all. I'm not sure if going via unstable
or experimental is best at this point, but either way, this would allow us
preparing a package that links against the system picosat again.
I've attached a patch that enables the undertaker to be run with a 960
picomus and removes the install of the intree picomus.
Best Regards,
Stefan
2014-11-10 11:25 GMT+01:00 Michael Tautschnig m...@debian.org:
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 12:52:13 -0500, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
That doesn't
On 2014-10-21 19:53, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
Hi undertaker maintainers/uploaders,
[...]
Here is a list of files that are known to be shared by both packages
(according to the Contents file for sid/amd64, which may be
slightly out of sync):
/usr/bin/picomus
[...]
I wasn't even aware
Hi,
we have an in-tree variant of the PicoSAT because the newer, reentrant
version of picosat is around 30% slower for our usage than the one
we're currently using (936).
However, the picomus export is done for compatibility reasons. The
output format was changed several times and the version 954
On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 16:37:18 +0100, Stefan Hengelein wrote:
Hi,
we have an in-tree variant of the PicoSAT because the newer, reentrant
version of picosat is around 30% slower for our usage than the one
we're currently using (936).
However, the picomus export is done for compatibility
That doesn't sound like a bad idea at all. I'm not sure if going via unstable
or experimental is best at this point, but either way, this would allow us
preparing a package that links against the system picosat again.
Reinhard
On November 8, 2014 12:47:45 PM EST, Michael Tautschnig
On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 12:52:13 -0500, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
That doesn't sound like a bad idea at all. I'm not sure if going via unstable
or experimental is best at this point, but either way, this would allow us
preparing a package that links against the system picosat again.
[...]
Yes, it would help to resolve the conflict with picomus, with 2 small
changes in the undertaker source it would work
(removing the install of picomus in the makefile and adding a -q to
the call of picomus in BlockDefectAnalyzer.cpp)
However, i don't want to link against the system-lib of picosat.
Package: undertaker,picosat
Version: undertaker/1.6-1
Version: picosat/959-1
Severity: serious
User: trei...@debian.org
Usertags: edos-file-overwrite
Date: 2014-10-21
Architecture: amd64
Distribution: sid
Hi,
automatic installation tests of packages that share a file and at the
same time do not
Hi undertaker maintainers/uploaders,
[...]
Here is a list of files that are known to be shared by both packages
(according to the Contents file for sid/amd64, which may be
slightly out of sync):
/usr/bin/picomus
[...]
I wasn't even aware that undertaker was in Debian, and the same
11 matches
Mail list logo
