On Wed, Oct 25, 2006, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> 1. A script to ensure all Build-Depends*: field in Sources.gz can be
>parsed and installed in clean chroot. Might be more feasible now
>with cowdancer. This would give me confidence that
>pbuilder-satisfydepends is working.
I'm not sure if
Hi,
> > One thing that I'm weary about applying this change is that, by
> > applying this change, and potentially introducing breakage to Debian
> > sid, people will start filing serious FTBFS bugs. At this time of
> > imminent freeze, I don't think it's a good idea to generally upload
> > such ch
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> One thing that I'm weary about applying this change is that, by
> applying this change, and potentially introducing breakage to Debian
> sid, people will start filing serious FTBFS bugs. At this time of
> imminent freeze, I don't think it's a good idea
Hi,
> > 2. It might not be suitable for etch release if it's happening in two
> >months time.
>
> There's time to rollback the change if necessary. The second change is
> sufficiently separate that its behavior can be made configurable.
One thing that I'm weary about applying this change
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> 1. could you re-send the patch in a non-incremental form so that it's
>easier to apply?
Here is an updated version which handles a third type of APT error when
you mix experimental and unstable sources. I attach the updated
combined patch, and
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Hearing that I feel positive about merging this patch.
> 1. could you re-send the patch in a non-incremental form so that it's
>easier to apply?
Sure. I also kept the patch split because I found the second change
more intrusive and because it wa
Hi,
> > I assume this patch is for using experimental dependencies from
> > unstable chroots, not the one for
> > pbuilder create --distribution experimental
> > which creates a comlpetely experimental chroot.
>
> I have no idea how a "completely experimental chroot" looks like, but
> when
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 09, 2006, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > Here's a new version of this patch, which will also pull new packages
> > from experimental, and wont fail if the APT error lists more than one
> > broken Depends.
> Thanks for the patch, have you actually tested it?
Yes, it has a sm
Hi,
> > Please find another patch attached (incremental to the previous one)
> > which workaround the limitation I explained in the report.
>
> Here's a new version of this patch, which will also pull new packages
> from experimental, and wont fail if the APT error lists more than one
> brok
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006, Loïc Minier wrote:
> Please find another patch attached (incremental to the previous one)
> which workaround the limitation I explained in the report.
Here's a new version of this patch, which will also pull new packages
from experimental, and wont fail if the APT error l
Hi,
Please find another patch attached (incremental to the previous one)
which workaround the limitation I explained in the report.
The patch might seem longer, but it changes the level of indentation of
a large chunk; it's actually a bit more readable than with the previous
one only
11 matches
Mail list logo
