On Sat, Dec 06, 1997 at 04:36:40PM +0200, Fabrizio Polacco wrote:
Most maintainers have a double boot machine (like me), or have a bo
machine on their net, and launching recompilation of latest packages
(after a small change in the changelog file) is a little waste of time
(and gives more
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
You've won me over. I've backported a couple of my packages,
but only one (guavac) is not new for hamm, or even vaguely well known.
However I think that fixing bugs in hamm should probably take
priority, but I don't have outstanding here.
Right. It's only a
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
So, I think if somebody really wants to run some newer software
(which isn't necessarily stable in our terms), then the choices are:
1. compile it from sources -- ugly, but workable. Even to the extent
of making your own packages, which I gather youve done.
2.
On 05-Dec-1997 02:11:22, Paul Seelig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Greenland) writes:
And who is going to check and make sure that all the other packages in
bo that use perl, bash and the few other important goodies still
work the new versions? That's what a stable
Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nobody, but I don't *expect* it to, either. I guess my theory on this
is that if the change is small enough to expect no problems (i.e.
perl-5.003 - perl-5.004 (or whatever the actual number are)), then
is it *really* necessary to provide the upgrade?
Paul Seelig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Guess
why i proposed to name a directory with libc5 compiled hamm packages
bo-unstable?
Surely bo-unstable == hamm, so please invest your time in hamm, not
something that will be discarded in a few months.
Martin.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS
On Fri, Dec 05, 1997 at 11:23:33AM +0100, Paul Seelig wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Mitchell) writes:
Surely bo-unstable == hamm, so please invest your time in hamm, not
something that will be discarded in a few months.
Sure, but why invest my time in hamm which will be obsoleted in
Paul Seelig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Surely bo-unstable == hamm, so please invest your time in hamm, not
something that will be discarded in a few months.
Sure, but why invest my time in hamm which will be obsoleted in half a
year anyway?
Wrong. What is your basis for saying this?
On 04-Dec-1997 14:08:59, Paul Seelig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Baker) writes:
Well, this temporary problem lasts since quite a while now and i fear
that it will last for quite a while longer. I don't expect Debian-2.0
to happen earlier than somewhere at the end of
On Tue, Dec 02, 1997 at 08:39:35PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
To control the version number of the .deb produced, you can either
add something to the changelog (which isn't desirable in this case
I think), or call dpkg-gencontrol with the version on the command
line.
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) writes:
The issue of keeping Debian bo crunchy and fresh w/o inhibiting the bold
experimentalism of the hamm lineage is critical to Debian's success.
It hopefully won't be a problem once hamm is released. With a
11 matches
Mail list logo
