Hi,
Quoting Niko Tyni (2014-04-20 23:50:56)
I thought so too, but it doesn't seem to be the case?
For example, I can't install cmake:i386 in an amd64 trusty chroot:
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
cmake:i386 : Depends: cmake-data:i386 (= 2.8.12.2) but it is not
Stuart Prescott stuart at debian.org writes:
Unfortunately, the people who understand multiarch well enough to write it
up for policy haven't done so which leaves us with no normative
documentation in policy for the the Multi-Arch field in Packages, no
description of how the package
On 20 April 2014 12:58, Thorsten Glaser t...@debian.org wrote:
Stuart Prescott stuart at debian.org writes:
Unfortunately, the people who understand multiarch well enough to write it
up for policy haven't done so which leaves us with no normative
documentation in policy for the the Multi-Arch
+++ Stuart Prescott [2014-04-18 17:25 +1000]:
Hi Eugene,
It seems that in jessie (and similar in sid) a number of packages [1]
started to use ':' symbol in their dependency lists as part of package
names. This is, if I'm not misreading the Debian Policy §7.1 and §5.6.1,
is not allowed.
Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Stuart Prescott stuart at debian.org writes:
Unfortunately, the people who understand multiarch well enough to write
it up for policy haven't done so which leaves us with no normative
documentation in policy for the the Multi-Arch field in Packages, no
description of
Hi,
Quoting Wookey (2014-04-20 16:24:46)
So far as I know that spec doc is correct for Debian and Ubuntu. The only
significant difference is that Ubuntu has patched apt to assume that :all
packages are M-A:foreign by default. Debian has not, and requires all
packages to be so marked
As xnox says there is still some pending changes around the interpreter
problem, as described here:
https://wiki.debian.org/HelmutGrohne/MultiarchSpecChanges
And that debate is part of the reason this stuff hasn't been
considered 'finalised' and thus ready for policy. But I think the core
Hi all,
Quoting Stuart Prescott (2014-04-20 16:58:21)
As xnox says there is still some pending changes around the interpreter
problem, as described here:
https://wiki.debian.org/HelmutGrohne/MultiarchSpecChanges
And that debate is part of the reason this stuff hasn't been
considered
Le Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 07:53:57PM +0200, Johannes Schauer a écrit :
I wholeheartedly agree with Stuart's email. I would love to see policy lead
the
way. But as somebody who comes up with new things that might end up in policy:
how to proceed? My current approach is to write countless mails
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 03:24:46PM +0100, Wookey wrote:
So far as I know that spec doc is correct for Debian and Ubuntu. The
only significant difference is that Ubuntu has patched apt to assume
that :all packages are M-A:foreign by default. Debian has not, and
requires all packages to be so
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 11:58:59AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Stuart Prescott stuart at debian.org writes:
Unfortunately, the people who understand multiarch well enough to write it
up for policy haven't done so which leaves us with no normative
documentation in policy for the the
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014, Charles Plessy wrote:
things are too slow or not happening is the lack of manpower. See for example
the documentation of the Dpkg triggers: we miss only one single Debian
Developer to review the discussion and the patch in #582109 (I even offered to
go piece by piece, see
Le Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 11:06:00PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh a écrit :
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014, Charles Plessy wrote:
things are too slow or not happening is the lack of manpower. See for
example
the documentation of the Dpkg triggers: we miss only one single Debian
Developer to
Hi Eugene,
It seems that in jessie (and similar in sid) a number of packages [1]
started to use ':' symbol in their dependency lists as part of package
names. This is, if I'm not misreading the Debian Policy §7.1 and §5.6.1,
is not allowed.
Suggestions for issue's severity and how to
Hello,
It seems that in jessie (and similar in sid) a number of packages [1]
started to use ':' symbol in their dependency lists as part of package
names. This is, if I'm not misreading the Debian Policy §7.1 and §5.6.1,
is not allowed.
Suggestions for issue's severity and how to proceed?
[1]
* Eugene V. Lyubimkin jac...@debian.org, 2014-04-17, 22:24:
It seems that in jessie (and similar in sid) a number of packages [1]
started to use ':' symbol in their dependency lists as part of package
names. This is, if I'm not misreading the Debian Policy §7.1 and
§5.6.1, is not allowed.
* Jakub Wilk jw...@debian.org, 2014-04-17, 21:40:
* Eugene V. Lyubimkin jac...@debian.org, 2014-04-17, 22:24:
It seems that in jessie (and similar in sid) a number of packages
[1] started to use ':' symbol in their dependency lists as part of
package names. This is, if I'm not misreading the
Hi!
On Thu, 2014-04-17 at 22:24:11 +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
It seems that in jessie (and similar in sid) a number of packages [1]
started to use ':' symbol in their dependency lists as part of package
names. This is, if I'm not misreading the Debian Policy §7.1 and §5.6.1,
is not
18 matches
Mail list logo
