On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 00:26 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 22:10:52 -0400, Edward Allcutt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Perhaps because the specific compiler needed depends on what the
> > current kernel was compiled with? I thought that was the reason
> > linux-headers de
Bastian Blank wrote:
> You already built the kernel and therefor have a compiler installed.
But m-a would install all the clutter anyways, wouldn't it?
Regards,
Patrick
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Romain Beauxis wrote:
> Let's say that it's the quantitative approach. Other approaches are just
> chatty chatty.
Well, quantitative must not always be the best thing. And if it should
be an argument one should create *proper* stats.
> (This search is not adequate, it matches non-module packages
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 06:25:19PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Not good enough. What if I am using m-a with kernel.org kernel
> sources? I won't have a kernel-headers package installed (I don't). If
> you need something, depend upon it.
You already built the kernel and therefor ha
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 22:10:52 -0400, Edward Allcutt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Perhaps because the specific compiler needed depends on what the
> current kernel was compiled with? I thought that was the reason
> linux-headers depended on a specific compiler version.
Has that ever been th
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 10:10:52PM -0400, Edward Allcutt wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 11:26 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 01:03:38AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > > m-a don't need build-essential. It needs the compiler (nothing else like
> > > libc headers) for the ke
On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 11:26 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 01:03:38AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > m-a don't need build-essential. It needs the compiler (nothing else like
> > libc headers) for the kernel. The debian linux headers already depends
> > against the correct c
On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 01:03:38AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 08:44:50AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > It would be consistent with m-a's handling of build-essential. However,
> > I think m-a should depend on build-essential since it always requires
> > it. Therefore we
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 01:03:38 +0200, Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 08:44:50AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>> It would be consistent with m-a's handling of
>> build-essential. However, I think m-a should depend on
>> build-essential since it always requires it.
On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 08:44:50AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> It would be consistent with m-a's handling of build-essential. However,
> I think m-a should depend on build-essential since it always requires
> it. Therefore we are still undecided about bzip2.
m-a don't need build-essential. It n
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 04:51:10PM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt schrieb:
> > module-assistant installs build-essential it doesn't seem like space is
> > an important consideration.
>
> When i read this sentence I had an idea of what would eventually be
> better. module-assista
Le Tuesday 25 September 2007 17:37:03 Patrick Schoenfeld, vous avez écrit :
> Romain Beauxis schrieb:
> > Well the real solution to solve this is to count the ratio of packages
> > that provides sources as a bzip2 tarball with regard to gzip tarballs.
>
> Why do you call it the *real* solution? Wha
Romain Beauxis schrieb:
> Well the real solution to solve this is to count the ratio of packages that
> provides sources as a bzip2 tarball with regard to gzip tarballs.
Why do you call it the *real* solution? What makes the solution better
over the one I suggested?
> If this is a vast majority,
Le Tuesday 25 September 2007 16:51:10 Patrick Schoenfeld, vous avez écrit :
> > module-assistant installs build-essential it doesn't seem like space is
> > an important consideration.
>
> When i read this sentence I had an idea of what would eventually be
> better. module-assistant is installing bu
Hamish Moffatt schrieb:
> True, but what would be the harm in depending on bzip2? Given that
Well, i don't see a harm caused by that. But IMHO it is just a question
of how to read the policy, as it states the (spongelike) sentence:
"The Depends field should be used if the depended-on package is
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 11:30:37AM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> Steve Greenland wrote:
> > It seems to me that module-assistant should recommend/depend on bzip2,
> > since it is presumably m-a that is calling it.
>
> Since it seems as if not every module package is distributed as a bzip2
> t
Steve Greenland wrote:
> It seems to me that module-assistant should recommend/depend on bzip2,
> since it is presumably m-a that is calling it.
Since it seems as if not every module package is distributed as a bzip2
tarball I think Recommends would be suffice. Because it is a strong, but
not abso
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 08:43:09PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Hamish Moffatt [Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:18:34 +1000]:
>
> > Perhaps rt2500-source should recommend bzip2? The relationship seems to
> > fit the definition - a package that is usually installed along with it
> > but not strictly require
* Hamish Moffatt [Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:18:34 +1000]:
> Perhaps rt2500-source should recommend bzip2? The relationship seems to
> fit the definition - a package that is usually installed along with it
> but not strictly required.
Can you tell us in which "unusual installation" is a package that *on
On 23-Sep-07, 19:18 (CDT), Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 12:00:25AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 08:40 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > > I wouldn't expect rt2500-source to depend on bzip2 any more than I
> > > expect any package provi
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 12:00:25AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 08:40 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > I wouldn't expect rt2500-source to depend on bzip2 any more than I
> > expect any package providing a PDF file to depend on a viewer.
>
> That's different because there ar
On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 08:40 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 11:37:39PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > I wrote:
> > > Package: rt2500-source
> > > Version: 1:1.1.0-b4-4
> > > Severity: serious
> > >
> > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > > rt250
I wrote:
> Package: rt2500-source
> Version: 1:1.1.0-b4-4
> Severity: serious
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> rt2500-source includes a bzipped tarball which must be unpacked in
> order to build modules from it. Therefore it should depend on bzip2.
In fact this applies t
23 matches
Mail list logo
