Re: RFC: "autobuilder" pseudo-package

2007-09-26 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
Holger Levsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi, > > On Tuesday 25 September 2007 12:25, Simon Richter wrote: >> inspired by the "how to detect if inside a buildd chroot" thread: would >> it make sense to have an (empty) package "autobuilder" that all packages >> that are not supposed to be install

Re: RFC: "autobuilder" pseudo-package

2007-09-25 Thread Holger Levsen
Hi, On Tuesday 25 September 2007 12:25, Simon Richter wrote: > inspired by the "how to detect if inside a buildd chroot" thread: would > it make sense to have an (empty) package "autobuilder" that all packages > that are not supposed to be installed on autobuilders (daemons, packages > requiring i

Re: RFC: "autobuilder" pseudo-package

2007-09-25 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi, > > inspired by the "how to detect if inside a buildd chroot" thread: > would it make sense to have an (empty) package "autobuilder" that all > packages that are not supposed to be installed on autobuilders > (daemons, packages requiring interactive

RFC: "autobuilder" pseudo-package

2007-09-25 Thread Simon Richter
Hi, inspired by the "how to detect if inside a buildd chroot" thread: would it make sense to have an (empty) package "autobuilder" that all packages that are not supposed to be installed on autobuilders (daemons, packages requiring interactive configuration, ...) can conflict against? Sim