Re: changing architecture from any to all

2005-01-17 Thread Frank Küster
David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 10:07:25AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: >> Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: >> >> > If one changes the architecture of a package from "any" to "all" but >> > makes no change to the package name, does this require any sp

Re: changing architecture from any to all

2005-01-17 Thread David Weinehall
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 10:07:25AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > > > If one changes the architecture of a package from "any" to "all" but > > makes no change to the package name, does this require any special > > manual intervention, or would an upload

Re: changing architecture from any to all

2005-01-17 Thread Frank Küster
Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > If one changes the architecture of a package from "any" to "all" but > makes no change to the package name, does this require any special > manual intervention, or would an upload that makes such a change go > through as quickly as a normal upload woul

Re: changing architecture from any to all

2005-01-16 Thread Santiago Vila
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005, Jay Berkenbilt wrote: > If one changes the architecture of a package from "any" to "all" but > makes no change to the package name, does this require any special > manual intervention, or would an upload that makes such a change go > through as quickly as a normal upload would

Re: changing architecture from any to all

2005-01-16 Thread Artur R. Czechowski
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 02:58:24PM -0500, Jay Berkenbilt wrote: > Hypothetical situation: a compiled executable gets replaced with a shell > script. > Real situation: an architecture-dependent library packages gets > replaced by an architecture-independent dummy transitional package. Real situation