Hi,
Quoting Niko Tyni (2014-04-20 23:50:56)
> I thought so too, but it doesn't seem to be the case?
>
> For example, I can't install cmake:i386 in an amd64 trusty chroot:
>
> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> cmake:i386 : Depends: cmake-data:i386 (>= 2.8.12.2) but it is not
Le Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 11:06:00PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh a écrit :
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2014, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > things are too slow or not happening is the lack of manpower. See for
> > example
> > the documentation of the Dpkg triggers: we miss only one single Debian
> > Develop
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014, Charles Plessy wrote:
> things are too slow or not happening is the lack of manpower. See for example
> the documentation of the Dpkg triggers: we miss only one single Debian
> Developer to review the discussion and the patch in #582109 (I even offered to
> go piece by piece,
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 11:58:59AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Stuart Prescott debian.org> writes:
>
> > Unfortunately, the people who understand multiarch well enough to write it
> > up for policy haven't done so which leaves us with no normative
> > documentation in policy for the the Mul
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 03:24:46PM +0100, Wookey wrote:
> So far as I know that spec doc is correct for Debian and Ubuntu. The
> only significant difference is that Ubuntu has patched apt to assume
> that :all packages are M-A:foreign by default. Debian has not, and
> requires all packages to be s
Le Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 07:53:57PM +0200, Johannes Schauer a écrit :
>
> I wholeheartedly agree with Stuart's email. I would love to see policy lead
> the
> way. But as somebody who comes up with new things that might end up in policy:
> how to proceed? My current approach is to write countless m
Hi all,
Quoting Stuart Prescott (2014-04-20 16:58:21)
> > As xnox says there is still some pending changes around the interpreter
> > problem, as described here:
> > https://wiki.debian.org/HelmutGrohne/MultiarchSpecChanges
> >
> > And that debate is part of the reason this stuff hasn't been
> >
> As xnox says there is still some pending changes around the interpreter
> problem, as described here:
> https://wiki.debian.org/HelmutGrohne/MultiarchSpecChanges
>
> And that debate is part of the reason this stuff hasn't been
> considered 'finalised' and thus ready for policy. But I think the
Hi,
Quoting Wookey (2014-04-20 16:24:46)
> So far as I know that spec doc is correct for Debian and Ubuntu. The only
> significant difference is that Ubuntu has patched apt to assume that :all
> packages are M-A:foreign by default. Debian has not, and requires all
> packages to be so marked explic
Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Stuart Prescott debian.org> writes:
>
>> Unfortunately, the people who understand multiarch well enough to write
>> it up for policy haven't done so which leaves us with no normative
>> documentation in policy for the the Multi-Arch field in Packages, no
>> description o
+++ Stuart Prescott [2014-04-18 17:25 +1000]:
> Hi Eugene,
>
> > It seems that in jessie (and similar in sid) a number of packages [1]
> > started to use ':' symbol in their dependency lists as part of package
> > names. This is, if I'm not misreading the Debian Policy §7.1 and §5.6.1,
> > is not
On 20 April 2014 12:58, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Stuart Prescott debian.org> writes:
>
>> Unfortunately, the people who understand multiarch well enough to write it
>> up for policy haven't done so which leaves us with no normative
>> documentation in policy for the the Multi-Arch field in Packag
Stuart Prescott debian.org> writes:
> Unfortunately, the people who understand multiarch well enough to write it
> up for policy haven't done so which leaves us with no normative
> documentation in policy for the the Multi-Arch field in Packages, no
> description of how the package manager sho
Hi Eugene,
> It seems that in jessie (and similar in sid) a number of packages [1]
> started to use ':' symbol in their dependency lists as part of package
> names. This is, if I'm not misreading the Debian Policy §7.1 and §5.6.1,
> is not allowed.
>
> Suggestions for issue's severity and how to
Hi!
On Thu, 2014-04-17 at 22:24:11 +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> It seems that in jessie (and similar in sid) a number of packages [1]
> started to use ':' symbol in their dependency lists as part of package
> names. This is, if I'm not misreading the Debian Policy §7.1 and §5.6.1,
> is not
* Jakub Wilk , 2014-04-17, 21:40:
* Eugene V. Lyubimkin , 2014-04-17, 22:24:
It seems that in jessie (and similar in sid) a number of packages
[1] started to use ':' symbol in their dependency lists as part of
package names. This is, if I'm not misreading the Debian Policy §7.1
and §5.6.1, is
* Eugene V. Lyubimkin , 2014-04-17, 22:24:
It seems that in jessie (and similar in sid) a number of packages [1]
started to use ':' symbol in their dependency lists as part of package
names. This is, if I'm not misreading the Debian Policy §7.1 and
§5.6.1, is not allowed.
Suggestions for issu
Hello,
It seems that in jessie (and similar in sid) a number of packages [1]
started to use ':' symbol in their dependency lists as part of package
names. This is, if I'm not misreading the Debian Policy §7.1 and §5.6.1,
is not allowed.
Suggestions for issue's severity and how to proceed?
[1] m
18 matches
Mail list logo
