Hi Julian,
Thanks for taking a look at this.
> On 8 Jan 2017, at 21:42, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 01:33:08AM +, James Clarke wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 12:05:18AM +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 01:39:45PM
On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 01:33:08AM +, James Clarke wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 12:05:18AM +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 01:39:45PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:31:52PM +0100, Balint Reczey wrote:
> > > > On 06/04/2014 03:41 AM,
On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 12:05:18AM +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 01:39:45PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:31:52PM +0100, Balint Reczey wrote:
> > > On 06/04/2014 03:41 AM, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > > > * Other programs could “easily” use
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 01:39:45PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:31:52PM +0100, Balint Reczey wrote:
> > On 06/04/2014 03:41 AM, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > > * Other programs could “easily” use dpkg-architecture to check for
> > >identity or a match. (This poses
2016-01-20 15:12 GMT+01:00 Bálint Réczey :
> Hi,
>
> 2016-01-20 14:39 GMT+01:00 Colin Watson :
>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:31:52PM +0100, Balint Reczey wrote:
>>> On 06/04/2014 03:41 AM, Guillem Jover wrote:
>>> > * Other programs could “easily” use
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 03:17:18PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 01:39:45PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > I think this is somewhat unfortunate, but it is the reality right now.
> > Perhaps a good thing for somebody to work on would be reimplementing
> > dpkg-architecture
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 01:39:45PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:31:52PM +0100, Balint Reczey wrote:
> > On 06/04/2014 03:41 AM, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > > * Other programs could “easily” use dpkg-architecture to check for
> > >identity or a match. (This poses
Hi,
On 06/04/2014 03:41 AM, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Sun, 2014-05-25 at 22:04:48 +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
>> * Johannes Schauer [140522 13:30]:
>>> Debian policy 11.1.1 [1] and the associated footnote [2] allow
>>> architecture wildcards of the form os-any and
Hi,
2016-01-20 14:39 GMT+01:00 Colin Watson :
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:31:52PM +0100, Balint Reczey wrote:
>> On 06/04/2014 03:41 AM, Guillem Jover wrote:
>> > * Other programs could “easily” use dpkg-architecture to check for
>> >identity or a match. (This poses
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:31:52PM +0100, Balint Reczey wrote:
> On 06/04/2014 03:41 AM, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > * Other programs could “easily” use dpkg-architecture to check for
> >identity or a match. (This poses problems for programs that do not
>
> I think making apt call
Hi!
On Sun, 2014-05-25 at 22:04:48 +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Johannes Schauer j.scha...@email.de [140522 13:30]:
Debian policy 11.1.1 [1] and the associated footnote [2] allow
architecture wildcards of the form os-any and any-cpu. Apt seems to
equal cpu with debian architecture
* Johannes Schauer j.scha...@email.de [140522 13:30]:
Debian policy 11.1.1 [1] and the associated footnote [2] allow
architecture wildcards of the form os-any and any-cpu. Apt seems to
equal cpu with debian architecture which is not correct. Here is an
example of correct matching:
Bernhard R. Link brl...@debian.org writes:
Urgh. Really? This is far too complicated for most programs to implement
properly. I'd suggest to rather fix dpkg (and also fix policy.
Policy should obviously track dpkg, which is currently canonical for how
wildcards work since it contains the
Package: apt
Version: 1.0.1
Severity: normal
Hi,
Debian policy 11.1.1 [1] and the associated footnote [2] allow
architecture wildcards of the form os-any and any-cpu. Apt seems to
equal cpu with debian architecture which is not correct. Here is an
example of correct matching:
dpkg-architecture
14 matches
Mail list logo