Hi Steve,
Quoting Steve Langasek (2013-10-20 05:46:15)
> My recollection is that the "abolishing" of the Build-Depends-Stage1 field
> was done by the same dpkg maintainer who you say is now not giving you
> feedback.
Correct.
> It's elegant that a general-purpose syntax has been proposed, but el
Hi Johannes,
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 08:34:00AM +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> Quoting YunQiang Su (2013-10-15 08:08:52)
> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Johannes Schauer
> > wrote:
> > > What is yet to be decided is the concrete format for the Build-Depends
> > > syntax extension. The fir
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh dixit:
>Only if we also get a waiver that allows testing to go out-of-sync for these
I was talking about debports here, sorry if that was unclear.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
Beware of ritual lest you forget the meaning behind it.
yeah but it means if you really care about
On Sat, 19 Oct 2013, peter green wrote:
> If a release architecture is getting behind on building on a long
> term basis then IMO either more buildd hardware should be obtained
> or the port should lose it's release status.
>
> But that isn't what we are talking about here, we are talking about
>
Right now, we have the problem that an upload of a
> previously compiled source package that’s “totally unimportant” will be
> sorted before all source packages in state “uncompiled”.
Only if we also get a waiver that allows testing to go out-of-sync for these
arches. Otherwise, no thanks.
F
Hello,
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 05:01:31PM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
[snip freeze policy]
> Results of porter roll-call
> ===
>
> Summary table:
> Arch || DDs || NMs/DMs || Other || Total
> - ---++-++-++---++--
> armel
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> One thing I think we *can* do is to have debports wanna-build lower the
> build priorities of some sections below what we currently have as “all
> others”, which would mean that e.g. bioinformatics would still be built
> but only after the rest (both ou
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Oct 2013, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> > I'm still not sure why the virus contained in the source could not be
> > replaced by the EICAR test signature.
>
> Because it’s not testing a virus scanner, but because the
> specific RFC822 message in q
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013, Guillem Jover wrote:
> For example on one of my 64-bit systems, with 220481 paths installed, I
> go from 62.8 MiB to 46.1 MiB max resident memory, a saving of 16.7 MiB.
> That should compensate a bit for the slight increase in memory usage
> from xz.
This is great, thank you!
Package: wnpp
Owner: Youhei SASAKI
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: milter-manager
Version : 2.0.0
Upstream Author : Kouhei Sutou
* URL or Web page : http://milter-manager.sourceforge.net/
* License : GPL-3+
Description : A milter to use milters effectively
"Milt
>
> It's not difficult if you reject the requirement of being DOS[0] executable:
I meant ending up with something byte-for-byte identical.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http
11 matches
Mail list logo
