Hi Thorsten!
> your package Recommends: arachne-pnr. Can you please tell me where I can find
> this?
icestorm is a build-dependency for arachne-pnr, and the plan was therefore to
upload
arachne-pnr once/if icestorm is accepted into sid.
It has been ready for upload for quite some time:
Hi Ruben,
your package Recommends: arachne-pnr. Can you please tell me where I can find
this?
Thanks!
Thorsten
--
debian-science-maintainers mailing list
debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Hi Ruben,
Am 16/11/15 um 19:34 schrieb Ruben Undheim:
>> ... If there is a
>> package providing something and we allow a package of that name in that
>> is something completely different, then Debian would turn inconsistent.
>> Somewhere we apparently lost that email to the ftpmasters that
Hi!
> ... If there is a
> package providing something and we allow a package of that name in that
> is something completely different, then Debian would turn inconsistent.
> Somewhere we apparently lost that email to the ftpmasters that informs
> them about this name conflict, once we had become
Hello,
Am 16/11/15 um 18:00 schrieb Ruben Undheim:
>> your package Recommends: arachne-pnr. Can you please tell me where I can
>> find this?
> icestorm is a build-dependency for arachne-pnr, and the plan was therefore to
> upload
> arachne-pnr once/if icestorm is accepted into sid.
>
> It has
> >Can we keep /usr/share/icestorm to be "upstream compatible"?
>
> I would suggest to talk to the current icestorm maintainer whether this
> might create conflicts.
That sounds like a very reasonable thing to do!
However, I realized that the package was already diverging from upstream which
On Mon, 16 Nov 2015, Ruben Undheim wrote:
What about renaming it to "fpga-icestorm"?
Sounds good.
Can we keep /usr/share/icestorm to be "upstream compatible"?
I would suggest to talk to the current icestorm maintainer whether this
might create conflicts.
Thorsten
--
