On Monday, February 10, 2014 01:27:18 PM Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 09.02.2014 18:49, schrieb Daniel Schepler:
> > But since that new syntax is not backwards compatible with stable's dpkg
> > and apt, we won't be able to actually upload packages using that syntax
> > until at least after jessie's re
Am 09.02.2014 18:49, schrieb Daniel Schepler:
> But since that new syntax is not backwards compatible with stable's dpkg and
> apt, we won't be able to actually upload packages using that syntax until at
> least after jessie's release. So in the meantime, I'm submitting patches
> with
> just t
On Sunday, February 09, 2014 04:20:07 PM Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> Michael Biebl writes:
> > I'm a bit puzzled by that patch:
> >
> > Don't you need to mark the (optional) build-dependencies as such?
> > I don't see anything in the patch touch debian/control though.
> >
> > Co
Hi Michael,
Michael Biebl writes:
> If that is the case, I'd say let's wait until all those details have
> been figured out and merge a complete patch then.
I’ll let the submitter clarify. In case you want to revert my merge,
feel free to do so :).
--
Best regards,
Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On Sunday, February 09, 2014 04:20:07 PM Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> Michael Biebl writes:
> > I'm a bit puzzled by that patch:
> >
> > Don't you need to mark the (optional) build-dependencies as such?
> > I don't see anything in the patch touch debian/control though.
> >
> > Co
Am 09.02.2014 16:20, schrieb Michael Stapelberg:
> Hi Michael,
>
> Michael Biebl writes:
>> I'm a bit puzzled by that patch:
>>
>> Don't you need to mark the (optional) build-dependencies as such?
>> I don't see anything in the patch touch debian/control though.
>>
>> Could you elaborate how this
Hi Michael,
Michael Biebl writes:
> I'm a bit puzzled by that patch:
>
> Don't you need to mark the (optional) build-dependencies as such?
> I don't see anything in the patch touch debian/control though.
>
> Could you elaborate how this is supposed to work?
I looked at a couple of other patches b
Am 09.02.2014 06:29, schrieb Daniel Schepler:
> Source: systemd
> Version: 204-6
> Severity: wishlist
> Tags: patch
>
> The attached patch implements a stage1 bootstrap for systemd to resolve a
> couple Build-Depends cycles:
>
> systemd Build-Depends on libcryptsetup-dev, but lvm2 Build-Depends
control: tag -1 + pending
Hi Daniel,
Daniel Schepler writes:
> The attached patch implements a stage1 bootstrap for systemd to resolve a
> couple Build-Depends cycles:
>
> systemd Build-Depends on libcryptsetup-dev, but lvm2 Build-Depends on libudev-
> dev.
> systemd Build-Depends on gobject-in
Source: systemd
Version: 204-6
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
The attached patch implements a stage1 bootstrap for systemd to resolve a
couple Build-Depends cycles:
systemd Build-Depends on libcryptsetup-dev, but lvm2 Build-Depends on libudev-
dev.
systemd Build-Depends on gobject-introspection;
10 matches
Mail list logo
