Hi,
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Colin Watson wrote:
> This is cleaner than any of the other options I've come up with: it
> doesn't require hardcoding a list of "toolchain packages" that have
> special cross versions; it would allow us to stop having to shove
> pkg-config-HOST into cross-build chroots; a
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:17:07PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 21:51:32 +0100
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 09:34:16AM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 08:33:57AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > > If w
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:34:55PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 09:51:32PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > I'm not sure if wanna-build is the right tool to do this
> >
> > Why not?
> >
> > It already needs to do build-dependency tracking, marking packages
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 03:28:53PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Matthias Klose writes:
> > There are some issues when you do have an architecture dependent header
> > file which needs to be in the multiarch specific include directory. If
> > the header file is directly located in /usr/include, t
The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested
through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the
last week.
Total number of orphaned packages: 521 (new: 4)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 142 (new: 0)
Total number of packages request
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 21:51:32 +0100
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 09:34:16AM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 08:33:57AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > If wanna-build is updated to support these two fields, then I imagine
> > > it can
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 09:51:32PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > I'm not sure if wanna-build is the right tool to do this
>
> Why not?
>
> It already needs to do build-dependency tracking, marking packages as
> "can't be built yet because build-depends aren't there yet" all the
> time. T
On 17/01/13 15:08, Olivier Berger wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Daniel Pocock writes:
>
>> Simon and I both have some security/authentication packages in Debian.
>> I've proposed a group on alioth, pkg-auth, which would be an umbrella
>> for packages like this and potentially others
>>
>> The team approac
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 09:34:16AM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 08:33:57AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > If wanna-build is updated to support these two fields, then I imagine
> > it can run the bootstrapping dependency algorithm. While you wouldn't
> > want
For some (probably many) people, an upgrade from squeeze (or earlier) to
wheezy may be their first real experience of DNSSEC
I've tried to update the wiki page to help people who are completely new
to the subject. However, I'm sure there are people who may be able to
provide more specific comm
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Nicolas Guilbert
* Package name: libmindstorms
Version : 0.0.1
Upstream Author : Nicolas Guilbert
* URL : https://gitorious.org/mindstorms/libmindstorms
* License : LGPL
Programming Lang: C++
Description : A C++
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal
I'm low on time to work on libvorbisidec (tremor) and would love some
assistance. In particular, the following things would be helpful:
* tracking upstream -- they make no explicit releases, and their
mailing list is mostly silent. as you can see from the fact
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 08:51:34AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> Would it be possible to use something similar to the bits/ dir in
> eglibc? Or would your proposal replace that?
>
> /usr/include/python2.7/bits -> /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/python2.7/bits
Not "Multi-Arch: same" safe. (Note how /us
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:35:03AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 05:26:52PM +0100, Johannes Schauer a écrit :
> > Whether or not "nocheck" and "nodocs" can/should become build profiles
> > is of course still to be debated.
> for the packages I maintain, I am now replacing
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 01:21:41PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-01-17 at 12:06 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > Adam Borowski angband.pl> writes:
> >
> > > #define DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH "x86_64-linux-gnu"
> >
> > And then #include "<" DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH "/foo/bar.h" or what?
> > Is t
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Antoine Musso
* Package name: python-voluptuous
Version : 0.6
Upstream Author : Alec Thomas
* URL : http://pypi.python.org/pypi/voluptuous
* License : BSD
Programming Lang: Python
Description : Voluptuous, a pyth
Hi.
Daniel Pocock writes:
> Simon and I both have some security/authentication packages in Debian.
> I've proposed a group on alioth, pkg-auth, which would be an umbrella
> for packages like this and potentially others
>
> The team approach that Debian has been introducing brings a step change
+++ Wouter Verhelst [2013-01-17 08:33 +0100]:
> However, to do that, there's one thing I'm missing in your mail: there
> will be cases where packages, when built in a particular profile do not
> support some functionality. That is, the package is available and does
> most of what the full package
On Thu, 2013-01-17 at 12:06 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Adam Borowski angband.pl> writes:
>
> > This looks just like the solution ultimately chosen for #682183, except for
> > the include being monstrous. Let's instead add a file to libc6-dev with
> > the following:
> >
> > #define DEB_HOST
On 17/01/13 01:35, Charles Plessy wrote:
> for the packages I maintain, I am now replacing the regression tests that
> were ran during the build process by autopkgtest test suites.
...
> If this eventually becomes the norm, then we will not need "nocheck" build
> option or profile anymore.
Not nec
On 17/01/13 03:18, Wookey wrote:
> +++ Matthias Klose [2013-01-16 21:09 +0100]:
>> Even if there are a few more, I like it better to make the profiles more
>> granular, and then letting the people doing a bootstrap decide what to
>> include
>> in a stage1 or stage2 build.
>
> I can see some logic
Johannes Schauer email.de> writes:
> Your first example indeed demonstrates why multiple profiles are useful
> to be enabled at once.
Right, wasn’t that the assumption? Profiles are like a bitmask, or
checkboxen. Default is: all are disabled.
> Build-Depends: foo , bar
This is better. No ma
Colin Watson debian.org> writes:
> Also potentially x32.
Which is already on debian-ports, though with no packages at the moment:
http://buildd.debian-ports.org/stats/
Another thing would be a Coldfire port (which Wouter might eventually
start off the m68k port, but we’re concentrating on that
Neil Williams debian.org> writes:
> I'm not sure if we are going to find this situation:
>
> Source: foo
> Build-Depends: bar , baz <+embedded>
(No + there.)
I for one am waiting for this to be accepted for official archive
packages, because I want to use
Build-Depends: …, dietlibc-dev , …
f
Adam Borowski angband.pl> writes:
> This looks just like the solution ultimately chosen for #682183, except for
> the include being monstrous. Let's instead add a file to libc6-dev with
> the following:
>
> #define DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH "x86_64-linux-gnu"
And then #include "<" DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 04:30:06PM +, Wookey wrote:
[snip]
> It was done in Thibg's GSOC project for 4.7.2-4. Yes it needs more
> work to properly integrate, test, and make bootstrappable, but we have a
> working implementation (modulo keeping up with your amazing rate of
> new uploads :-). (F
* Charles Plessy , 2013-01-17, 10:35:
for the packages I maintain, I am now replacing the regression tests
that were ran during the build process by autopkgtest test suites.
http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep8/
(see http://developer.ubuntu.com/packaging/html/auto-pkg-test.html
while Alio
Hi Adam,
thanks for your ITP. I'd (strongly) recommend using a less generic
name. Why not sticking to the upstream choice "sosreport"?
BTW, after reading the description twice I totally fail to tell what
this package might really do. After reading the very short description
on the github page
On Mi, 16 ian 13, 16:01:00, Paul Johnson wrote:
> I installed Wheezy beta 4 from CD and was surprised that compiz window
> manager was removed. Compiz is the best thing about Linux, that's a
> shame. I tracked down some explanations, don't want to start a flame
> war about that decision.
>
> But,
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 08:33:57AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> If wanna-build is updated to support these two fields, then I imagine
> it can run the bootstrapping dependency algorithm. While you wouldn't
> want to upload a package to the debian.org archive when the
> architecture is as ye
30 matches
Mail list logo
