Le jeudi 14 avril 2011 à 17:47 +0200, Romain d'Alverny a écrit :
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 16:02, Frank Griffin wrote:
> > On 04/14/2011 07:28 AM, Tux99 wrote:
> >>
> >> Does anyone know what the status of the buildsystem with regards to
> >> building dual core/tainted packages from a single sourc
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 16:02, Frank Griffin wrote:
> On 04/14/2011 07:28 AM, Tux99 wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone know what the status of the buildsystem with regards to
>> building dual core/tainted packages from a single source rpm is?
Not done yet. It's in sysadmin team's TODO (the usual "sysadmin
On 04/14/2011 07:28 AM, Tux99 wrote:
Does anyone know what the status of the buildsystem with regards to
building dual core/tainted packages from a single source rpm is?
And to re-ask a related question that was never resolved: is "tainted"
supposed to be a replacement for PLF, or will PLF st
Quote: Oliver Burger wrote on Mon, 28 March 2011 10:17
> What about packages, we need twice, once in core, once in
> tainted (media player come to mind)?
> Will the buildsystem be able to create both out of one single
> src.rpm? If not, how else to do it?
Does anyone know what the status of the
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:17, Oliver Burger wrote:
> What is our policy about "tainted packages"? It's quite clear we have to check
> every one of them, if they can be distributed by us, but do we have any
> guidlines?
The guidelines should be progressive: what goes into core, what goes
into non
Hi,
since the package version freeze is coming nearer (April, 20th), perhaps we
should discuss the "tainted" issue once more.
What is our policy about "tainted packages"? It's quite clear we have to check
every one of them, if they can be distributed by us, but do we have any
guidlines?
What
