Am 09.01.2014 20:20, schrieb Colin Watson:
> Apparently, though, quite a few packages do fail to build with
> /usr/bin/libtool split out. I don't have numbers yet - Matthias said he
> was going to summarise. Still, I think this will be easier to fix than
> trying to get an M-A: allowed libtool to
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 07:20:40PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> If you weren't one of the people in the "thinking extremely hard about
> multiarch" BOF at DebConf, note that Multi-Arch: foreign denotes a point
> in the dependency graph where you're allowed to switch architectures,
> Multi-Arch: all
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 07:20:40PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
>
> Overall, I would therefore prefer option 1 (not the option I expected to
> prefer when I started analysing this!), because as far as I can see it
> will unblock cross-building for both packages that need /usr/bin/libtool
> and those
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 09:55:06PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 07:20:40PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > This analysis makes sense as far as it goes, but the problem with it is
> > that it neglects any consideration of libtool's dependencies. As I
> > discovered today, it t
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 07:20:40PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 06:14:07PM +, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> > The correct solution is for libtool package to be marked as
> > "multi-arch: allowed" without splitting this tiny package into two
> > even smaller packages.
>
>
On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 06:14:07PM +, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> The correct solution is for libtool package to be marked as
> "multi-arch: allowed" without splitting this tiny package into two
> even smaller packages.
This analysis makes sense as far as it goes, but the problem with it is
t
6 matches
Mail list logo
