On Tuesday 22 April 2008 20:40, Marcin Krol wrote:
that is still package install stage, not package build time.
there is no such thing as directory deps are added to package. these are
verified at package installation stage.
If its at install stage, not build time then how my private
you're not paying attention what i say. so this is last email in this thread
from me. bye!
And vice versa :) Thanks god I've forked. Keep breaking more stuff.
M.
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Marcin Krol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you're not paying attention what i say. so this is last email in this thread
from me. bye!
And vice versa :) Thanks god I've forked. Keep breaking more stuff.
Guys, please stop fighting and actually do explain and dive
Guys, please stop fighting and actually do explain and dive into
details when replying. It could be that you are both right just
approaching the same problem from two different angles. Keep PLD a
healthy place for further flamewars :)
Problem is already fixed, flame is over and next time I'll
before 2.6.24 is also questionable.
Do you mean that we should make triggers to act on something that never
existed in distro, but in CVS only? Its insane idea and if such policy
will occur I'm leaving this train.
it is properly solved in 2.6.22 branch
(so the links appear only and only if
that is still package install stage, not package build time.
there is no such thing as directory deps are added to package. these are
verified at package installation stage.
If its at install stage, not build time then how my private computer
knows exact path to builder chroot ie. on
that is still package install stage, not package build time.
there is no such thing as directory deps are added to package. these are
verified at package installation stage.
If its at install stage, not build time then how my private computer
knows exact path to builder chroot ie. on
On Tuesday 22 April 2008 09:45:33 Marcin Krol wrote:
before 2.6.24 is also questionable.
Do you mean that we should make triggers to act on something that never
existed in distro, but in CVS only? Its insane idea and if such policy
will occur I'm leaving this train.
from what you are writing
On Monday 21 April 2008 13:34, hawk wrote:
Author: hawk Date: Mon Apr 21 10:34:24 2008 GMT
Module: SPECS Tag: LINUX_2_6
Log message:
- killed creating arch/{i386,x86_64}/boot symlinks in makefiles, causes
broken directory deps in -source
so merge in the missing trigger and NOTE that you should package a ghost FILE
not SYMLINK
What missing trigger? There were no such %ghost entries before 2.6.24
and 2.6.24 from LINUX_2_6 branch didn't made it officialy to any version
of PLD yet. This part of my commit is simple revert of
On Monday 21 April 2008 14:30, Marcin Krol wrote:
so merge in the missing trigger and NOTE that you should package a ghost
FILE not SYMLINK
What missing trigger? There were no such %ghost entries before 2.6.24
and 2.6.24 from LINUX_2_6 branch didn't made it officialy to any version
of PLD
11 matches
Mail list logo
