Joachim Breitner nome...@debian.org writes:
Dear devel,
I have an interesting case for a hypothetical âsource package without
binary packagesâ: The haskell compiler comes with an extensive test
suite. This test suite
1. is distributed separately from the sources,
2. takes
Hi Guillem,
Am Samstag, den 07.01.2012, 02:40 +0100 schrieb Guillem Jover:
That's what I did for the last posixtestsuite 1.5.2-4 upload, and
while the “dummy” binary package might seem a bit worthless, it has
some advantages; it keeps the maintainer build log, something the buildd
network
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 05.01.2012, 22:33 -0800 schrieb Josh Triplett:
Joachim Breitner wrote:
From my point of view, it seems desirable to package the testsuite as a
source-package of its own, build-depending on GHC and the additional
libraries required, and upload that. Our autobuilding
Hi!
On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 18:26:13 +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Theoretically, there is no interesting binary package produced from this
source package and it seems that the policy does not explicitly require
that a source package produces binary packages... but I am certain that
this is an
Dear devel,
I have an interesting case for a hypothetical „source package without
binary packages“: The haskell compiler comes with an extensive test
suite. This test suite
1. is distributed separately from the sources,
2. takes a long time to run and
3. partly depends on libraries
Joachim Breitner, 2012-01-05 18:26+0100 (gmane.linux.debian.devel.general):
Theoretically, there is no interesting binary package produced from this
source package and it seems that the policy does not explicitly require
that a source package produces binary packages... but I am certain that
On 05/01/2012 18:26, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Dear devel,
I have an interesting case for a hypothetical „source package without
binary packages“: The haskell compiler comes with an extensive test
suite. This test suite
1. is distributed separately from the sources,
2. takes a long
On 05/01/2012 18:26, Joachim Breitner wrote:
So the logical conclusion is to build a binary package from the
source that contains nothing (or maybe a log of the test results)
and clearly states in its description that there is no point in
installing this binary package.
Is this
On Do, Jan 05, 2012 at 18:26:13 (CET), Joachim Breitner wrote:
Dear devel,
I have an interesting case for a hypothetical „source package without
binary packages“: The haskell compiler comes with an extensive test
suite. This test suite
1. is distributed separately from the sources
Hi,
Am Freitag, den 06.01.2012, 00:47 +0100 schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
On Do, Jan 05, 2012 at 18:26:13 (CET), Joachim Breitner wrote:
Dear devel,
I have an interesting case for a hypothetical „source package without
binary packages“: The haskell compiler comes with an extensive test
Le Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 06:26:13PM +0100, Joachim Breitner a écrit :
From my point of view, it seems desirable to package the testsuite as a
source-package of its own, build-depending on GHC and the additional
libraries required, and upload that. Our autobuilding infrastructure
would thus
Joachim Breitner wrote:
From my point of view, it seems desirable to package the testsuite as a
source-package of its own, build-depending on GHC and the additional
libraries required, and upload that. Our autobuilding infrastructure
would thus run the testsuite on the various architectures,
12 matches
Mail list logo
