On Sat, Jan 07, 2017 at 07:32:12PM +, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 02:32:45PM +0100, Christian Seiler wrote:
> > On 01/05/2017 02:06 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > Quoting Riku Voipio (2017-01-05 12:53:16)
> > >> Vast majority of users would only install this via
On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 02:32:45PM +0100, Christian Seiler wrote:
> On 01/05/2017 02:06 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > Quoting Riku Voipio (2017-01-05 12:53:16)
> >> Vast majority of users would only install this via dependencies. It's
> >> hardly a node-specific problem that debian package
On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 10:01:38AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 9:32 PM, Christian Seiler wrote:
>
> > Could we maybe hide library packages from apt searches by default?
>
> This is going to have unintended consequences; for example, if we base
> it on Debian Section fields,
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 9:32 PM, Christian Seiler wrote:
> Could we maybe hide library packages from apt searches by default?
This is going to have unintended consequences; for example, if we base
it on Debian Section fields, library source packages that build a
binary package containing tools,
Quoting Christian Seiler (2017-01-05 14:32:45)
> On 01/05/2017 02:06 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> Quoting Riku Voipio (2017-01-05 12:53:16)
>>> Vast majority of users would only install this via dependencies.
>>> It's hardly a node-specific problem that debian package searches
>>> output large
On 01/05/2017 02:06 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Riku Voipio (2017-01-05 12:53:16)
>> Vast majority of users would only install this via dependencies. It's
>> hardly a node-specific problem that debian package searches output
>> large amount of packages that are not useful unless you
6 matches
Mail list logo
