On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 05:45:23PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > - Second step is slowly migrating all packages (via Policy).
>
> With your approach, *all* packages need to migrate to the new syntax,
No, not all. We could maintain backwards compatibility by detecting the old
Architecture fie
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 03:59:48PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 03:26:35PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > Ok, I see a couple of big problems with your implementation.
> >
> > * Currently a real Debian architecture is composed of kernel/system +
> > cpu and that's a pair
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 03:26:35PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
>
> Yeah I meant to criticize it, but then forgot. :> Also I was not
> aware of that proposal. Or I cannot recall you telling me every
> time I brought out the alias idea. :>
Well, it's been in the BTS since 2001. You could have had
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 01:40:03PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 10:11:26AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > I've been thinking on implementing this for a long time. As
> > Robert has presented an implementation to the Architecture
> > handling problem that does not conv
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 01:05:28PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> >
> > As I just said to Goswin, my patch doesn't modify the way dpkg handles
> > architectures internaly. dpkg-genchanges uses Cpu/System logic to determine
> > wether we can build a package, but when generating DEBIAN/control
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 01:57:17PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
> Could we automatically define some @linux@ or @any-i386@ variables the
> same way shlidbs or other substitutions work?
We already have this with type-handling, but this kind of tag replacement
looks more like a hack to the
On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 11:43 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 09:08:02AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 04:14 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> >
> > > This is the continuation of bug #118910. Since you retitled it as
> > > "[ARCH] clean up archtable"
On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 08:25 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This is the continuation of bug #118910. Since you retitled it as
> > "[ARCH] clean up archtable", I considered you'd prefer me to file a separate
> > bug for this. Feel free to reti
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 01:41:22PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
> Then we can just keep using type-handling for this.
Yes. But type-handling has a few inconvenients:
- It requires manual hacking of debian/rules file.
- debian/control becomes auto-generated, and for some reason some
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 10:11:26AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been thinking on implementing this for a long time. As
> Robert has presented an implementation to the Architecture
> handling problem that does not convince me at all, so instead
> of just sitting here and criticize his
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 09:08:02AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
>> On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 04:14 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
>>
>> > This is the continuation of bug #118910. Since you retitled it as
>> > "[ARCH] clean up archtable", I considered you
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 08:25:35AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> >
>> > Build-Depends: bin86 [cpu: i386]
>>
>> What does Build-Depends: bin86 [cpu: i386, mips] mean? All i386 cpus
>> and linux-mips? All i386 cpus and all mips cpus?
>
> All i
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 09:08:02AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 04:14 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> > This is the continuation of bug #118910. Since you retitled it as
> > "[ARCH] clean up archtable", I considered you'd prefer me to file a separate
> > bug for this.
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 08:25:35AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >
> > Build-Depends: bin86 [cpu: i386]
>
> What does Build-Depends: bin86 [cpu: i386, mips] mean? All i386 cpus
> and linux-mips? All i386 cpus and all mips cpus?
All i386 cpus and all mips cpus.
> What about [cpu: i386,
On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 04:14 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> This is the continuation of bug #118910. Since you retitled it as
> "[ARCH] clean up archtable", I considered you'd prefer me to file a separate
> bug for this. Feel free to retitle/merge if you think otherwise.
>
> The changes are prett
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Package: dpkg
> Version: 1.10.26+kbsd
> Severity: wishlist
> Tags: patch
>
> Hi!
>
> This is the continuation of bug #118910. Since you retitled it as
> "[ARCH] clean up archtable", I considered you'd prefer me to file a separate
> bug for this. Feel f
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.10.26+kbsd
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Hi!
This is the continuation of bug #118910. Since you retitled it as
"[ARCH] clean up archtable", I considered you'd prefer me to file a separate
bug for this. Feel free to retitle/merge if you think otherwise.
The changes are
17 matches
Mail list logo
