Le 15/01/2011 18:22, Steve Langasek a écrit :
[...] and require us to use a hackish (>= ), (<< )
construction for all arch:any -> arch:all dependencies just as we already
have to do for arch:all -> arch:any dependencies.
This is as "wrong" as adding artificial versioned build-dependencies, a
[Joachim Breitner, 2011-01-26]
> (I know that I’m not actually helping to solve the problem, but I want
> to give a better picture of the work involved and how much the buildd
> infrastructure is relied upon by the Haskell team – thanks for that!)
FWIW: dh_python2 based packages would benefit from
Hi,
Am Samstag, den 15.01.2011, 10:29 + schrieb Philipp Kern:
> On 2011-01-15, Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva wrote:
> > The best option to fix this issue I can see is if it was possible to do
> > binNMUs
> > for Arch: all packages. There are some options to workaround the fact that
> > we
>
Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva writes:
> Hi Goswin.
>
> Excerpts from Goswin von Brederlow's message of Qua Jan 26 11:28:59 -0200
> 2011:
> (...)
>> But having some generated html files depend on the exact ghc version
>> seems extrem.
>
> Yes, I don't see the need of adding a Depends: field to -do
Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva writes ("Re: binNMU for Arch: all packages."):
> Excerpts from Goswin von Brederlow's message of Qua Jan 26 11:28:59 -0200
> 2011:
> (...)
> > But having some generated html files depend on the exact ghc version
> > seems extre
Hi Goswin.
Excerpts from Goswin von Brederlow's message of Qua Jan 26 11:28:59 -0200 2011:
(...)
> But having some generated html files depend on the exact ghc version
> seems extrem.
Yes, I don't see the need of adding a Depends: field to -doc packages.
> So splitting out the version dependent
Bastian Blank writes:
> On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 01:23:01PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 12:21:52 +0100, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
>> > Le 15/01/2011 11:29, Philipp Kern a écrit :
>> > > Arch:all binNMUing will only work if you keep the invariant of
>> > > version(arch:al
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 01:53:34PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 10:29:46AM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > Arch:all binNMUing will only work if you keep the invariant of
> > version(arch:all) = version(source) in some way.
> This invariant comes from where? From my knowledg
On 2011-01-15, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> Le 15/01/2011 13:23, Julien Cristau a écrit :
>> Package: foo
>> Architecture: all
>> Package: bar
>> Architecture: any
>> Depends: foo (= ${source:Version})
>> If ${source:Version} is not version(arch:all) you've got yourself an
>> uninstallable package. I
Le 15/01/2011 13:23, Julien Cristau a écrit :
> Package: foo
> Architecture: all
>
> Package: bar
> Architecture: any
> Depends: foo (= ${source:Version})
>
> If ${source:Version} is not version(arch:all) you've got yourself an
> uninstallable package. If ${source:Version} is not version(source)
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 13:52:06 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 01:23:01PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 12:21:52 +0100, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> > > Le 15/01/2011 11:29, Philipp Kern a écrit :
> > > > Arch:all binNMUing will only work if you keep
library docs each time the compiler is updated? What does it
> give?
Hey,
It is possible the Java packages could use binNMU for arch: all packages
as well. There was some talk about injecting "ABI" versioning in Java
Libraries at DebConf10, so we could handle ABI breakage in a similar
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 10:29:46AM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
> Arch:all binNMUing will only work if you keep the invariant of
> version(arch:all) = version(source) in some way.
This invariant comes from where? From my knowledge neither w-b nor dak
cares about it.
Bastian
--
Deflector shields j
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 01:23:01PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 12:21:52 +0100, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> > Le 15/01/2011 11:29, Philipp Kern a écrit :
> > > Arch:all binNMUing will only work if you keep the invariant of
> > > version(arch:all) = version(source) in some way
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 12:21:52 +0100, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> Le 15/01/2011 11:29, Philipp Kern a écrit :
> > Arch:all binNMUing will only work if you keep the invariant of
> > version(arch:all) = version(source) in some way.
>
> Why is this needed?
>
Package: foo
Architecture: all
Package:
Le 15/01/2011 11:29, Philipp Kern a écrit :
> Arch:all binNMUing will only work if you keep the invariant of
> version(arch:all) = version(source) in some way.
Why is this needed?
--
Stéphane
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tro
On 2011-01-15, Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva wrote:
> The best option to fix this issue I can see is if it was possible to do
> binNMUs
> for Arch: all packages. There are some options to workaround the fact that we
> can't binNMUs Arch: all packages, which are: change the -doc package to Arch:
>
Hi Yves-Alexis.
Excerpts from Yves-Alexis Perez's message of Sex Jan 14 19:22:31 -0200 2011:
> On ven., 2011-01-14 at 18:05 -0200, Marco Silva wrote:
> > This documentation is generated automatically
> > from the source code, using a documentation generator called haddock.
> > Haddock
> > is par
On ven., 2011-01-14 at 18:05 -0200, Marco Silva wrote:
> This documentation is generated automatically
> from the source code, using a documentation generator called haddock. Haddock
> is part of the compiler and is also updated when the ghc is. It would be
> good to regenerate the documentation
Hi.
In the Debian Haskell Group we are with the following problem. When the
compiler (ghc) is updated, we binNMU all the stack of libraries to make them
compiled with the new compiler. Each library has the documentation in a -doc
package, which is Arch: all. This documentation is generated auto
20 matches
Mail list logo
