On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 17:49:33 +0100
Adeodato Simó wrote:
(Please drop me from CC: where possible, -devel is fine for me.
Keeping Julian in CC - not sure if he's subscribed to -devel but I'm
confident you are, Adeodato.)
> * Julian Andres Klode [Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:07:55 +0100]:
>
> > 4. An exter
* Matthew Johnson [Thu, 15 Jan 2009 17:21:03 +]:
> > No, the only use for "Architecture: all [i386 amd64]" or
> > "Install-Architecture: i368 amd64" would be as a hint to dak (and other
> > tools) that the package is known not to be installable anywhere else,
> > and hence should not be put in
On Thu Jan 15 17:49, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> An arch:all package should be installable anywhere where its
> dependencies can be satisfied. And if they can't be satisfied, dpkg/apt
> will refuse to install it already.
>
> No, the only use for "Architecture: all [i386 amd64]" or
> "Install-Architect
* Julian Andres Klode [Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:07:55 +0100]:
Hello, Julian.
> This would be my other proposal, also known as Bug#436733:
> Package: acpi-support-base
> Architecture: all
> Depends: acpid [i386 amd64]
> But in order to be correct, currently apt and co. do not support this.
> The
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 07:32:18PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
>
> Package: acpi-support-base
> Architecture: any
> Depends: acpid [i386|amd64]
>
I do not understand what you are proposing. The package would not be
binary-indep
in your proposal (and the current syntax for depends is "acpid [i386
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:12:08 +
Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Wed Jan 14 19:56, Neil Williams wrote:
> > > The problem with both of these is that if acpid starts working on ppc as
> > > well you have to transition acpi-support-base. Ideally the solution
> > > shouldn't require an upload to acpi-
On Wed Jan 14 19:56, Neil Williams wrote:
> > The problem with both of these is that if acpid starts working on ppc as
> > well you have to transition acpi-support-base. Ideally the solution
> > shouldn't require an upload to acpi-support-base when the architectures
> > of its dependencies change.
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:40:08 +
Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Wed Jan 14 19:32, Neil Williams wrote:
> > > > > How about using (for example)
> > >
> > > > > Architecture: all [i386 amd64 ppc]
> >
> > I should just note that this was a suggestion by Goswin von Brederlow.
> >
> > I'm wondering
On Wed Jan 14 19:32, Neil Williams wrote:
> > > > How about using (for example)
> >
> > > > Architecture: all [i386 amd64 ppc]
>
> I should just note that this was a suggestion by Goswin von Brederlow.
>
> I'm wondering if the change should be made in the other direction:
>
> Package: acpi-supp
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 10:41:11 +0100
Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > >> Russ Allbery wrote:
> > >> > It would be nice if there were some way of telling the archive software
> > >> > not to include this package in the archive index on the platforms it
> > >> > doesn't support, though.
If there is a way of
(Dropping -mentors and r...@. Bcc ftpmas...@.)
* Julian Andres Klode [Wed, 14 Jan 2009 08:06:43 +0100]:
> 2009/1/13 Neil Williams :
> > On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 08:30:08 +0100
> > "Julian Andres Klode" wrote:
> >> Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> > It would be nice if there were some way of telling the arch
2009/1/13 Neil Williams :
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 08:30:08 +0100
> "Julian Andres Klode" wrote:
>
>> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> > It would be nice if there were some way of telling the archive software
>> > not to include this package in the archive index on the platforms it
>> > doesn't support, though
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 08:30:08 +0100
"Julian Andres Klode" wrote:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
> > It would be nice if there were some way of telling the archive software
> > not to include this package in the archive index on the platforms it
> > doesn't support, though.
>
> My proposal was http://lists
13 matches
Mail list logo
