Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% grep-dctrl -F Priority required
> /var/lib/apt/lists/storage_debian-amd64_dists_stable_main_binary-amd64_Packages
> -s Section | sort | uniq -c
> 1 Section: admin
> 36 Section: base
> 1 Section: devel
> 12 Section: libs
>
Enrico Zini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 05:06:13PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
>> While we are at it why not remove sections alltogether?
>> We have the debtags system that by far superseeds the sections and
>> since the pool structure is used sections have been
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 05:06:13PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> While we are at it why not remove sections alltogether?
> We have the debtags system that by far superseeds the sections and
> since the pool structure is used sections have been quite useless.
There are some reasons I'm not
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060518 21:20]:
>> Better to just remove the sections from override altogether. Just keep
>> what the package says.
>
> Doesn't the current setup also ensure no package from non-free or
> contrib accidentially end up in main whe
"Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060518 21:20]:
>> Better to just remove the sections from override altogether. Just keep
>> what the package says.
>
> Doesn't the current setup also ensure no package from non-free or
> contrib accidentia
* Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060518 21:20]:
> Better to just remove the sections from override altogether. Just keep
> what the package says.
Doesn't the current setup also ensure no package from non-free or
contrib accidentially end up in main when the section is wrong?
Hochachtun
"Kevin B. McCarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Could the archive infrastructure be updated to synch the override file
> with what's in the .debs automatically?
>
> regards,
Better to just remove the sections from override altogether. Just keep
what the package says.
MfG
Goswin
--
To
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Christoph Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Re: Kevin B. McCarty 2006-05-17 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> In case anyone is interested in filing mass bug reports (I am not
>>> sufficiently interested, sorry), here are the -dev packages in
>>> unexpected sections, obtai
Christoph Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Re: Kevin B. McCarty 2006-05-17 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> In case anyone is interested in filing mass bug reports (I am not
>> sufficiently interested, sorry), here are the -dev packages in
>> unexpected sections, obtained as follows:
>
> Isn't that more a
Re: Kevin B. McCarty 2006-05-17 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In case anyone is interested in filing mass bug reports (I am not
> sufficiently interested, sorry), here are the -dev packages in
> unexpected sections, obtained as follows:
Isn't that more a matter of updating the override files?
Christoph
Tim Cutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Playing devil's advocate for a moment:
While we are at it why not remove sections alltogether?
We have the debtags system that by far superseeds the sections and
since the pool structure is used sections have been quite useless.
MfG
Goswin
--
T
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> "Kevin B. McCarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> In case anyone is interested in filing mass bug reports (I am not
>> sufficiently interested, sorry), here are the -dev packages in
>> unexpected sections, obtained as follows:
>>
>> grep-aptavail -r -P '.*-dev$' -s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 17 May 2006, at 10:46 pm, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
I found this more instructive:
$ apt-cache search -n .\*-dev\$ | sed 's/ -.*//' | xargs apt-cache
show
| grep \^Section: | sort | uniq -c
1 Section: admin
1 Section: comm
"Kevin B. McCarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In case anyone is interested in filing mass bug reports (I am not
> sufficiently interested, sorry), here are the -dev packages in
> unexpected sections, obtained as follows:
>
> grep-aptavail -r -P '.*-dev$' -s Section,Package | paste -sd ' \n' |
In case anyone is interested in filing mass bug reports (I am not
sufficiently interested, sorry), here are the -dev packages in
unexpected sections, obtained as follows:
grep-aptavail -r -P '.*-dev$' -s Section,Package | paste -sd ' \n' | \
egrep -v '^Section: (|contrib/|non-free/)(doc|python|
Jörg Sommer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I ever thought development packages classified by $NAME-dev belong to the
> Section devel or libdevel, but
>
> I am really suprised. Which packages belong to devel/libdevel?
>
I found this more instructive:
$ apt-cache search -n .\*-dev\$ | sed 's/ -.*//' | xarg
Hi,
I ever thought development packages classified by $NAME-dev belong to the
Section devel or libdevel, but
% apt-cache search -n .\*-dev\$ | sed 's/ -.*//' | \
xargs apt-cache show | grep \^Section: | sort -u
Section: admin
Section: comm
Section: contrib/libdevel
Section: devel
Section: doc
17 matches
Mail list logo
