Hello:
As the initial trigger of these interventions, may I ask if anything
has been done to provide version 4.0 of GROMACS for amd64 lenny?
thanks
francesco pietra
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Andreas Tille wrote:
> [Reply-To set to debian-devel because this topic belongs here.]
>
> On Fri,
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 03:56:00PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 12:58:00PM +0200, Manuel Prinz wrote:
> >
> > Yes. I like the idea but we simply can't rebuild everything from the
> > task pages of these blends since there are also tools from KDE or GNOME
> > which would me
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 05:40:58PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> > > Shouldn't checking if Build-Depends are satisfiable in stable be enough?
> > > And if it doesn't build that way, I'd say there's a bug in the package
> > > anyways, because it should b
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> > Shouldn't checking if Build-Depends are satisfiable in stable be enough?
> > And if it doesn't build that way, I'd say there's a bug in the package
> > anyways, because it should bump some build dependencies.
>
> build-deps are not necessarily runtime
This one time, at band camp, Andreas Tille said:
> So in short: we should choose the "well-defined" subset of packages
> which are candidates for autobackporting according to their feature to
> be buildable inside stable and using an control field to mark the
> packages that way.
Sounds like you
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 09:24:46AM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
> Sounds like you think it's a good idea. Why not do it and let us know
> how you get on?
One point for you beeing the first raising this killer argument. ;-)
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Klarmachen zum Ändern!
--
To UNSUBSCRI
Frank Küster wrote:
> For some teTeX (or older TeXLive?) packages, I've used a
> "sarge-backport" (or whatever the stable version was) target in
> debian/rules. It added a changelog entry with backport version number,
> and it switched some patches and build-deps (in particular, poppler
> wasn't a
* Mike Hommey [090925 16:06]:
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 03:56:00PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > So in short: we should choose the "well-defined" subset of packages
> > which are candidates for autobackporting according to their feature to
> > be buildable inside stable and using an control fiel
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 04:39:20PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 04:06:15PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 03:56:00PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > > So in short: we should choose the "well-defined" subset of packages
> > > which are candid
Andreas Tille wrote:
> IMHO this problem is not really Debian Science or Blends related and the
> idea to handle backports analog to non-free autobuilds sounds quite
> reasonable - but in this case we *really* make it analog tp non-free which
> works with a debian/control field
>
> XS-Autobui
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 04:06:15PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 03:56:00PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > So in short: we should choose the "well-defined" subset of packages
> > which are candidates for autobackporting according to their feature to
> > be buildable insi
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 04:06:15PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 03:56:00PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > So in short: we should choose the "well-defined" subset of packages
> > which are candidates for autobackporting according to their feature to
> > be buildable inside st
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 03:56:00PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> So in short: we should choose the "well-defined" subset of packages
> which are candidates for autobackporting according to their feature to
> be buildable inside stable and using an control field to mark the
> packages that way.
Sh
13 matches
Mail list logo
