Hi Sean,
On 11/05/2023 03:59, Sean Whitton wrote:
Hello,
On Wed 10 May 2023 at 11:47PM +02, Ansgar wrote:
Dear ctte, please consider overruling the dpkg maintainer to include
the patch from #994388[1].
Currently dpkg contains code to emit the merged-/usr warning, that's
dead code on
On 10/07/16 02:16, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'd like to obsolete the ${Source-Version} substvar, which has very
> misleading semantics, and has been deprecated since dpkg 1.13.19 in
> 2006-05-04. This currently emits warnings from various dpkg-dev
> scripts and from lintian.
>
>
Control: reassign 768598 dpkg 1.17.21
Control: reassign 768600 dpkg 1.17.21
Control: forcemerge -1 768598 768600
Control: affects -1 man-db font-config readhead-fedora
On 08/11/14 17:38, Guillem Jover wrote:
Hi!
On Sat, 2014-11-08 at 16:56:33 +, Colin Watson wrote:
Control: reassign -1
Control: reassign 768598 dpkg 1.17.21
Control: reassign 768600 dpkg 1.17.21
Control: forcemerge -1 768598 768600
Control: affects -1 man-db font-config readhead-fedora
On 08/11/14 17:38, Guillem Jover wrote:
Hi!
On Sat, 2014-11-08 at 16:56:33 +, Colin Watson wrote:
Control: reassign -1
On 21/08/14 00:21, Guillem Jover wrote:
Control: forcemerge 684625 -1
On Tue, 2014-08-19 at 11:25:19 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.17.11
Severity: wishlist
Currently M-A:same packages with different versions can't be co-installed.
That prevents packages
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.17.11
Severity: wishlist
(X-d-cc debian-release@)
Hi,
Currently M-A:same packages with different versions can't be co-installed.
That prevents packages that have been binNMUed in one architecture but not
another to be co-installed, e.g.
libfoo_1.1-1:i386
On 02/03/10 11:05, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
What is the stance of dpkg-dev maintainers on this?
I think it's ok. But some more feedback would be welcome, CCing -devel for
this.
The substvars approach sounds good to me. I think I'd use it quite a
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.15.5.4
Severity: important
Hi,
pochu I have an arch:all package that depends on foo [!hurd-any]
pochu if I build it on i386, the package Depends: foo
pochu but if I build it on hurd-i386, it doesn't
pochu since it's arch:all, this is problematic...
This is
Hi Raphael, sorry for the delay.
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jul 2009, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
I'm implementing automatic creation of debug packages, and to generate
their binary control file I'm using dpkg-gencontrol. The debug package
are not listed in debian/control, and thus
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.15.3
Severity: wishlist
Hiya,
I'm implementing automatic creation of debug packages, and to generate
their binary control file I'm using dpkg-gencontrol. The debug package
are not listed in debian/control, and thus when calling dpkg-gencontrol
I get something like:
Greetings from this new -policy subscriber!
Russ Allbery wrote:
@@ -4188,6 +4188,22 @@ Build-Depends-Indep: texinfo
Build-Depends: kernel-headers-2.2.10 [!hurd-i386],
hurd-dev [hurd-i386], gnumach-dev [hurd-i386]
/example
+ requires ttkernel-headers-2.2.0/tt on all
11 matches
Mail list logo
