On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 04:06:50PM -0400, Roberto C. S?nchez wrote:
On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 09:57:49PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
I would rather have maintainers spend time improving their packages
instead of wasting it trying to figure out why some architecture
fail/refuses to
Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Matthew Johnson]
Or at least didn't block testing migration. I'm happy if porters decide
my package isn't for them, as long as it doesn't stop it being for
anyone else either...
I agree. Perhaps a new rule should be introduced, that when a
On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 10:42:53AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 12:33:58AM -0400, Michael Casadevall wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like a pretty bad idea to NFU
software
that can be compiled on an architecture even if it doesn't
On Thu, 07 Aug 2008, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Matthew Johnson]
Or at least didn't block testing migration. I'm happy if porters decide
my package isn't for them, as long as it doesn't stop it being for
anyone else either...
I agree.
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 07 Aug 2008, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Matthew Johnson]
Or at least didn't block testing migration. I'm happy if porters decide
my package isn't for them, as long as it doesn't
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Thu, 07 Aug 2008, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Matthew Johnson]
Or at least didn't block testing migration. I'm happy if porters decide
my package isn't for them, as long as it doesn't stop it being for
anyone
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like a pretty bad idea to NFU software
that can be compiled on an architecture even if it doesn't seem that useful.
I have the X11 libraries on my NSLU2, which lacks any graphical output, but
I use it as an X11 server.
That being said, I can see the point
On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 12:33:58AM -0400, Michael Casadevall wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like a pretty bad idea to NFU software
that can be compiled on an architecture even if it doesn't seem that useful.
I have the X11 libraries on my NSLU2, which lacks any graphical output,
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 12:33:58AM -0400, Michael Casadevall wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like a pretty bad idea to NFU software
that can be compiled on an architecture even if it doesn't seem that useful.
I have the X11 libraries on my NSLU2, which lacks
On Wed Aug 06 10:42, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 12:33:58AM -0400, Michael Casadevall wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like a pretty bad idea to NFU
software
that can be compiled on an architecture even if it doesn't seem that
useful.
[Matthew Johnson]
Or at least didn't block testing migration. I'm happy if porters decide
my package isn't for them, as long as it doesn't stop it being for
anyone else either...
I agree. Perhaps a new rule should be introduced, that when a porter
flag a package as NFU on a given
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Back in the Old Days when I ran an Alpha buildd (years ago), things
never got automatically marked not-for-us; that happened manually.
After asking around on IRC a few weeks ago, there is no longer consensus
that's how it happens now. Does anybody know?
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 12:21:52PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
This seems to happen to me most often on the s390 build daemon, and has
happened with at least 3 to 5 different packages now. (Current example
is hpodder). In fact, I don't think I've ever seen it happen elsewhere.
It seems to
13 matches
Mail list logo
