Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 01:28:58AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
It does? How does that work for packages with only a minimal control
file that generate a full contol file during build?
Such packages need to make sure their initial control file
[Goswin von Brederlow]
Which also avoids that packages will be unavailable on every new
architecture debian introduces because the maintainer has to adjust
the Architecture: line.
I suppose it'd be nice to be able to use !foo in the Architecture: line
for cases where something is known not to
On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 11:08:14AM -0500, Rudy Godoy wrote:
On 22/02/2005 at 10:11 Wouter Verhelst wrote...
snip
I agree that we should not continue to provide software for outdated
hardware platforms just for the sake of it; but as it is, there are
still people interested in m68k (some
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 04:42:54AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Goswin von Brederlow]
Which also avoids that packages will be unavailable on every new
architecture debian introduces because the maintainer has to adjust
the Architecture: line.
I suppose it'd be nice to be able to use
Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Goswin von Brederlow]
Which also avoids that packages will be unavailable on every new
architecture debian introduces because the maintainer has to adjust
the Architecture: line.
I suppose it'd be nice to be able to use !foo in the Architecture:
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 08:18:56PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Goswin von Brederlow]
Which also avoids that packages will be unavailable on every new
architecture debian introduces because the maintainer has to adjust
the Architecture:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 08:18:56PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Goswin von Brederlow]
Which also avoids that packages will be unavailable on every new
architecture debian introduces because the
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 01:28:58AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 08:18:56PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Goswin von Brederlow]
Which also avoids that packages
On 22/02/2005 at 10:11 Wouter Verhelst wrote...
snip
I agree that we should not continue to provide software for outdated
hardware platforms just for the sake of it; but as it is, there are
still people interested in m68k (some hobbyists, some embedded
developers, some who just use their old
Rudy Godoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Regarding this issue I was thinking about it since I've faced in a
situation where a package[0] I maintain does have high hardware
requirements, which led me to think if it is really wise to have it
with arch: any since probably in some arches it would not
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rudy Godoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Regarding this issue I was thinking about it since I've faced in a
situation where a package[0] I maintain does have high hardware
requirements, which led me to think if it is really wise to have it
with
11 matches
Mail list logo
