On 2013-09-28 22:18 +0200, Norbert Preining wrote:
> since a short time when I build a binary package on my running system,
> I cannot install the created .deb anymore because it depends on
> libc-amd64 (>= some.version) which somehow is not what I have although
> I am running amd64 sid.
Uninstal
Hi everyone,
second try, with more data ..
default package texinfo, I am importing a new upstream into my git,
no changes to debian/rules or debian/control, rebuild.
>From the debian/control:
..
Package: info
...
Architecture: any
Multi-Arch: foreign
...
After building the package looks like:
i
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 04:32:05AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-09-28 at 10:16 -0500, Bob Tracy wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 02:29:05PM +0100, Jurij Smakov wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Julien Cristau
> > > wrote:
> > > > (...)
> > > > xserver-xorg-video-sis
>
On Sat, 2013-09-28 at 10:16 -0500, Bob Tracy wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 02:29:05PM +0100, Jurij Smakov wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > > (...)
> > > xserver-xorg-video-sis
> > > (...)
>
> The SiS chipset was, unfortunately, really popular with manufactu
Le Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 10:10:07PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen a écrit :
>
> Not in the preferred form for modification means you're not distributing
> the source. We don't do that.
Hi Tollef and everybody,
please, I would like people to accept that things are not black and white. In
"preferred for
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:18:03AM +0400, Norbert Preining wrote:
> since a short time when I build a binary package on my running system, I
> cannot install the created .deb anymore because it depends on
>libc-amd64 (>= some.version)
> which somehow is not what I have although I am running am
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Andreas Tille
* Package name: r-bioc-hypergraph
Version : 1.32.0-1
Upstream Author : Seth Falcon, Robert Gentleman
* URL :
http://bioconductor.org/packages/release/bioc/html/hypergraph.html
* License : Artistic-2.0
Pro
Hi everyone,
since a short time when I build a binary package on my running system, I cannot
install the created .deb anymore because it depends on
libc-amd64 (>= some.version)
which somehow is not what I have although I am running amd64 sid.
Any suggestions?
Thanks
Norbert
---
]] Andreas Tille
> On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 10:31:47PM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
> >
> > Charles' statement made me nervous because it sounds like he is saying
> > he's not interested in looking carefully enough to know which side of
> > any line he's on, and he wants to use Debian resources to
On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 10:31:47PM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
>
> Charles' statement made me nervous because it sounds like he is saying
> he's not interested in looking carefully enough to know which side of
> any line he's on, and he wants to use Debian resources to redistribute
> that lack of e
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 09:32:01PM +, Faheem Mitha wrote:
> I had noticed you doing a lot of work on R packaging, and would like
> to express my appreciation. I know much of the time packaging can seem
> like hard and thankless work.
Having done several R packages myself I need to admit that t
Hey,
Op 28-09-13 17:16, Bob Tracy schreef:
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 02:29:05PM +0100, Jurij Smakov wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Julien Cristau wrote:
>>> (...)
>>> xserver-xorg-video-sis
>>> (...)
> The SiS chipset was, unfortunately, really popular with manufacturers of
> relative
Off the top of my head, my Sun E3500 (8x 64-bit SPARC CPUs) has an SBUS
graphics adapter that is one of those cg{N} adapters, but honestly, Linux
support for E3500 is shoddy at best, so it's fine by me.
Patrick
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Jurij Smakov wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:2
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 02:29:05PM +0100, Jurij Smakov wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > (...)
> > xserver-xorg-video-sis
> > (...)
The SiS chipset was, unfortunately, really popular with manufacturers of
relatively expensive micro PeeCees (EzGo, Jadetec, etc.),
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Julien Cristau wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we (the debian X Strike Force) are thinking of removing the following
> packages from the archive, unless somebody steps up (soon) to take care
> of them. The reason is they see 0 testing, nobody maintains them
> upstream, if you'r
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 09:08:55AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The question is how to make it clear that's not the intent, which
> requires figuring out how to separate the other use cases from the gcc
> and glibc case.
I guess the general answer you're looking for depends on the use cases
Built-
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
tag 688251 - patch
usertags 688251 discussion
thanks
Le Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 09:08:55AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>
> The basic problem that we're trying to solve is that nearly every package
> in Debian incorporates code from gcc and/or libc into the re
17 matches
Mail list logo
