On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 10:06:05AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 12:18:48AM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 20:51:27 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
(More than a
On Sun, Feb 04, 2007 at 09:43:33AM +0100, Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 10:06:05AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 12:18:48AM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
I think that is a shortcomming of apt though.
apt-get install foo=1.2-3
will fetch foo 1.2-3 from whatever repository that has that
version. But with
Package: foo
Version: 1.2-3
Depends: bar (= 1.2-3)
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
I think that is a shortcomming of apt though.
apt-get install foo=1.2-3
will fetch foo 1.2-3 from whatever repository that has that
version. But with
Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Actually, sbuild uses plain apt-get and apt-cache to handle build deps
these days; so if apt can handle a dependency, then so can sbuild.
The problem really is the fact that experimental has 'NoAuto: yes' (or
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
I think that is a shortcomming of apt though.
apt-get install foo=1.2-3
will fetch foo 1.2-3 from whatever repository that has that
version. But with
Package: foo
Version: 1.2-3
Depends: bar (= 1.2-3)
apt-get will NOT fetch bar 1.2-3 unless
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 09:20:19AM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007, Mike Hommey wrote:
I would assume 10 days is enough to automatically build all that
is in experimental...
Some packages can not be autobuilt due to complex dependencies across
unstable and experimental.
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Actually, sbuild uses plain apt-get and apt-cache to handle build deps
these days; so if apt can handle a dependency, then so can sbuild.
The problem really is the fact that experimental has 'NoAuto: yes' (or
what is it again) set in its Release
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007, Mike Hommey wrote:
I would assume 10 days is enough to automatically build all that
is in experimental...
Some packages can not be autobuilt due to complex dependencies across
unstable and experimental. AFAIK, sbuild is not designed to work from
multiple APT sources,
Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 12:18:48AM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 20:51:27 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
(More than a few days later, it seems like still nothing is
happening...)
i can see a couple of logs signed
On Wednesday 24 January 2007 10:06, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 12:18:48AM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 20:51:27 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
(More than a few days later, it seems like
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Steffen Moeller wrote:
All packages that can be autobuilt on i386 have been autobuilt, and that
was finished more than a week ago. But nice to hear that nothing has
happened.
The original poster certainly was not aware of the experimental.debian.net
site. I have
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 01:12:09AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As a lot of gnome 2.16 currently in experimental has been uploaded for
amd64, there's a lot of it not built for x86 yet.
I heard several times people claim
Hi,
On Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 20:51:27 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 01:12:09AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As a lot of gnome 2.16 currently in experimental has been uploaded for
amd64, there's a lot of
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 12:18:48AM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 20:51:27 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 01:12:09AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As a
Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As a lot of gnome 2.16 currently in experimental has been uploaded for
amd64, there's a lot of it not built for x86 yet.
I heard several times people claim experimental was autobuilt, but are
there any x86 autobuilder set up for experimental ?
There was
Hi,
As a lot of gnome 2.16 currently in experimental has been uploaded for
amd64, there's a lot of it not built for x86 yet.
I heard several times people claim experimental was autobuilt, but are
there any x86 autobuilder set up for experimental ?
Cheers
Mike
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Hi,
On Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 19:01:31 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
Hi,
As a lot of gnome 2.16 currently in experimental has been uploaded for
amd64, there's a lot of it not built for x86 yet.
I heard several times people claim experimental was autobuilt, but are
there any x86 autobuilder set
Wouter Verhelst, 2006-03-01 21:40:14 +0100 :
I'm most concerned about i386; will it get built for that?
Most likely. If not, nobody's keeping you from building manually --
or from asking someone else to build it.
In case it helps: I'm right now uploading a set of i386 packages to
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
MFT is broken by design. No-one should expect to remote control other
people's mail clients. All one can do is ask and if you want to ask in
the headers, fine, but don't go flaming when it gets lost in the noise.
All of From,
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 05:24:52PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 02:46:02AM +0100, Gabor Gombas wrote:
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 01:04:17AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
However, the code of conduct seems to
point out that one should not Cc someone unless they
Floris Bruynooghe [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...]
But I've heard people claiming M-F-T is not a proper standard (despite
not having an X- in the header) and even being broken. [...]
If I recall correctly, you can look in the IETF DRUMS working
group archive and you'll see it not becoming a proper
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* First, there is no guarantee that the experimental buildd network will
build your package. We do a best effort to successfully build as many
packages as possible, but it is not possible to guarantee that every
package will be built on all
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 11:17:46AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* First, there is no guarantee that the experimental buildd network will
build your package. We do a best effort to successfully build as many
packages as possible
Floris Bruynooghe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But I've heard people claiming M-F-T is not a proper standard
Since those sort of people generally love to whine and fuss about most
everything, I figure they'll secretly appreciate the chance to whine
about the CC:s they get... :-/
-miles
--
Ich bin
No need to Cc, I'm subscribed[0].
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 23:39 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 22:59 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
[gnucash not appearing on buildd.d.o; is this normal?]
Yes. You want
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 08:59:46AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
[0] In case you're unsure, you can check the X-Spam-Status header, which
will tell you that I am an LDOSUBSCRIBER, in which case you can assume
Just nitpicking: there is no X-Spam-Status: header in my copy; however,
there is a
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 11:39:21PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
How do I get the package queued more generally? Is it automatic?
Yes. But the experimental buildds don't build from incoming, so you
have to wait at least one dinstall run for it to happen. And since you
uploaded gnucash
, for clarity, I'll add that the experimental buildd network
behaves slightly different from the unstable buildd network, and this
may require some work from your end:
* First, there is no guarantee that the experimental buildd network will
build your package. We do a best effort to successfully
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 03:13:34PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
This, however, is a bug, and AAUI one that is in the process of being
resolved.
[mumble, mumble]
No, not Apple Attachment Unit Interface, AIUI: As I Understand It.
--
Fun will now commence
-- Seven Of Nine, Ashes to Ashes,
[Please followup to -project; I am subscribed there, too, so you should
*not* Cc me.]
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 12:13 +0100, Gabor Gombas wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 08:59:46AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
[0] In case you're unsure, you can check the X-Spam-Status header, which
will tell
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 01:04:17AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
I understand that different mail systems do different things (although I
hope you're not using qmail[0]).
Not on my desktop, but I have no control over the institute's central
services.
However, the code of conduct seems to
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 02:46:02AM +0100, Gabor Gombas wrote:
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 01:04:17AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
However, the code of conduct seems to
point out that one should not Cc someone unless they specifically ask
for it (a guideline that you neglected to follow, after
I recently uploaded gnucash 1.9.1 to Debian experimental, but this
doesn't seem to have affected buildd.debian.org. Is this normal?
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 22:59 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I recently uploaded gnucash 1.9.1 to Debian experimental, but this
doesn't seem to have affected buildd.debian.org. Is this normal?
Yes. You want experimental.ftbfs.de, specifically:
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 22:59 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I recently uploaded gnucash 1.9.1 to Debian experimental, but this
doesn't seem to have affected buildd.debian.org. Is this normal?
Yes. You want experimental.ftbfs.de, specifically:
36 matches
Mail list logo
