Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% grep-dctrl -F Priority required
/var/lib/apt/lists/storage_debian-amd64_dists_stable_main_binary-amd64_Packages
-s Section | sort | uniq -c
1 Section: admin
36 Section: base
1 Section: devel
12 Section: libs
1
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 05:06:13PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
While we are at it why not remove sections alltogether?
We have the debtags system that by far superseeds the sections and
since the pool structure is used sections have been quite useless.
There are some reasons I'm not
Enrico Zini [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 05:06:13PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
While we are at it why not remove sections alltogether?
We have the debtags system that by far superseeds the sections and
since the pool structure is used sections have been quite
* Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060518 21:20]:
Better to just remove the sections from override altogether. Just keep
what the package says.
Doesn't the current setup also ensure no package from non-free or
contrib accidentially end up in main when the section is wrong?
Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060518 21:20]:
Better to just remove the sections from override altogether. Just keep
what the package says.
Doesn't the current setup also ensure no package from non-free or
contrib accidentially end up in
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060518 21:20]:
Better to just remove the sections from override altogether. Just keep
what the package says.
Doesn't the current setup also ensure no package from non-free or
contrib accidentially end up in main when the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 17 May 2006, at 10:46 pm, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
I found this more instructive:
$ apt-cache search -n .\*-dev\$ | sed 's/ -.*//' | xargs apt-cache
show
| grep \^Section: | sort | uniq -c
1 Section: admin
1 Section: comm
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Kevin B. McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In case anyone is interested in filing mass bug reports (I am not
sufficiently interested, sorry), here are the -dev packages in
unexpected sections, obtained as follows:
grep-aptavail -r -P '.*-dev$' -s
Tim Cutts [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Playing devil's advocate for a moment:
While we are at it why not remove sections alltogether?
We have the debtags system that by far superseeds the sections and
since the pool structure is used sections have been quite useless.
MfG
Goswin
--
To
Re: Kevin B. McCarty 2006-05-17 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In case anyone is interested in filing mass bug reports (I am not
sufficiently interested, sorry), here are the -dev packages in
unexpected sections, obtained as follows:
Isn't that more a matter of updating the override files?
Christoph
Christoph Berg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Re: Kevin B. McCarty 2006-05-17 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In case anyone is interested in filing mass bug reports (I am not
sufficiently interested, sorry), here are the -dev packages in
unexpected sections, obtained as follows:
Isn't that more a matter of
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Christoph Berg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Re: Kevin B. McCarty 2006-05-17 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In case anyone is interested in filing mass bug reports (I am not
sufficiently interested, sorry), here are the -dev packages in
unexpected sections, obtained as follows:
Kevin B. McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Could the archive infrastructure be updated to synch the override file
with what's in the .debs automatically?
regards,
Better to just remove the sections from override altogether. Just keep
what the package says.
MfG
Goswin
--
To
Hi,
I ever thought development packages classified by $NAME-dev belong to the
Section devel or libdevel, but
% apt-cache search -n .\*-dev\$ | sed 's/ -.*//' | \
xargs apt-cache show | grep \^Section: | sort -u
Section: admin
Section: comm
Section: contrib/libdevel
Section: devel
Section:
Jörg Sommer wrote:
Hi,
I ever thought development packages classified by $NAME-dev belong to the
Section devel or libdevel, but
snip output
I am really suprised. Which packages belong to devel/libdevel?
I found this more instructive:
$ apt-cache search -n .\*-dev\$ | sed 's/ -.*//' |
In case anyone is interested in filing mass bug reports (I am not
sufficiently interested, sorry), here are the -dev packages in
unexpected sections, obtained as follows:
grep-aptavail -r -P '.*-dev$' -s Section,Package | paste -sd ' \n' | \
egrep -v '^Section:
Kevin B. McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In case anyone is interested in filing mass bug reports (I am not
sufficiently interested, sorry), here are the -dev packages in
unexpected sections, obtained as follows:
grep-aptavail -r -P '.*-dev$' -s Section,Package | paste -sd ' \n' | \
17 matches
Mail list logo
