On 2014-10-19, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 04:39:20PM +0200, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
>> > What I know of is
>> > - large parts of boost and
>> > - seqan.
>>
>> If you are looking for samples: mpfrc++ [1] can be added.
>
> And mdds. And parts of libvigraimpex.
>
> And I am just pa
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 04:39:20PM +0200, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
>
>
> On 19/10/14 16:07, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 03:30:17PM +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> >> On Sun, 19 Oct 2014, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> >>> This is about packaging around a header only C++ library package.
> >
On Oct 19, Marc Haber wrote:
> Ah. That explains your plans. Making life with a split-off /usr as
> hard as possible to that people migrate to /usr on / because of the
> artificially caused pain.
No, my evil plan is to use mind control to force people to migrate / in
/usr.
--
ciao,
Marco
sig
On 19/10/14 16:07, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 03:30:17PM +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Oct 2014, Osamu Aoki wrote:
>>> This is about packaging around a header only C++ library package.
>> IIRC, we already have one in the archive. I vaguely recall it
>> from m68k
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 03:30:17PM +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2014, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > This is about packaging around a header only C++ library package.
> IIRC, we already have one in the archive. I vaguely recall it
> from m68k porter work, but can’t remember the name. Somet
On Sun, 2014-10-19 at 11:48 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:49:29 +0200, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
> >On Oct 16, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> >
> >> > | If one of the members of the tech ctte considers that we should
> >> > | either overwrite the udev-maintainer or move p
Quoting The Wanderer (2014-10-19 15:24:03)
> On 10/19/2014 at 09:19 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Oct 2014, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>
>>> If package is suitable for unstable but not for testing, please
>>> upload to unstable and file severe bugreport to keep it from
>>> entering te
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> This is about packaging around a header only C++ library package.
IIRC, we already have one in the archive. I vaguely recall it
from m68k porter work, but can’t remember the name. Something
mathematical, I think?
bye,
//mirabilos
--
15:41⎜ Somebody write
On 10/19/2014 at 09:19 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2014, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
>> If package is suitable for unstable but not for testing, please
>> upload to unstable and file severe bugreport to keep it from
>> entering testing.
>
> I thought so too, but learned that this i
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> If package is suitable for unstable but not for testing, please upload
> to unstable and file severe bugreport to keep it from entering testing.
I thought so too, but learned that this is a bad idea.
Sometimes, you have to update the package in test
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> cc:ing the apt maintainers to get their opinion on making this the default...
aspcud is not suitable as a default solver. It is far too slow and
ignores some aspects people are accustomed to, like a Depends: a | b
installing a whenev
Hi,
cc:ing the apt maintainers to get their opinion on making this the default...
On Sonntag, 19. Oktober 2014, Thomas Krennwallner wrote:
> > Basically, this boils down to the fact that people shouldn't have to read
> > a manpage about a complex priority scheme in an equally-complex
> > resolver
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:49:29 +0200, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
>On Oct 16, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>
>> > | If one of the members of the tech ctte considers that we should
>> > | either overwrite the udev-maintainer or move printf to /bin, we
>> The coreutils maintainer may still decide
On Sun Oct 19, 2014 09:32:54AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> David Kalnischkies:
> > Selecting one package in an or-group is a grand example of people not
> > understand their tools although the policy is simple and logic: If it
> > isn't impossible to let it win, the first alternative wins. If
Hi,
David Kalnischkies:
> > Apitude, too, *really* likes to choose 500 deletions rather than upgrading
> > even a single package to a version with slightly-lower priority (as defined
> > in /etc/apt/pref*), but at least you can tell it to try harder. :-/
>
> I shouldn't, I really shouldn't, but w
15 matches
Mail list logo
