On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 22:20:19 +0200, Fabian Greffrath
wrote:
> > > We'll get it done for wheezy+1 ;-).
> > I'll take you by the word. ;)
>
> OMG, mingw32 is still in Debian!
And we still have a bit more than a year before wheezy+1 freezes, so I
haven't broken my promise yet.
Regards,
Stephen
> > We'll get it done for wheezy+1 ;-).
> I'll take you by the word. ;)
OMG, mingw32 is still in Debian!
- Fabian
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
> We'll get it done for wheezy+1 ;-).
I'll take you by the word. ;)
- Fabian
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
On Sat, Jul 07, 2012 at 03:12:43PM +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 07, 2012 at 12:55:43PM +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> > Because it's still a reverse build-dependency (for netbeans,
> > autorun4linuxcd and cpio). See the bugs blocking this one...
>
> Yes, but they all have patch
> On Sat, Jul 07, 2012 at 12:55:43PM +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Because it's still a reverse build-dependency (for netbeans,
> autorun4linuxcd and cpio). See the bugs blocking this one...
Yes, but they all have patches. Isn't it NMU-time yet? ;)
I guess no-one in seriously interested in shi
On Sat, Jul 07, 2012 at 12:55:43PM +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> o_O
>
> Why is src:mingw32 still in wheezy?!
Because it's still a reverse build-dependency (for netbeans,
autorun4linuxcd and cpio). See the bugs blocking this one...
Regards,
Stephen
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs
o_O
Why is src:mingw32 still in wheezy?!
- Fabian
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 03:03:16 +1030, Ron wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 01:17:43AM +0100, Stephen Kitt wrote:
> > There is one major difference I know of: i686-pc-mingw32 (the official
> > MinGW triplet) builds with Dwarf2 exception handling, whereas the
> > -w64-mingw32 (the official MinGW-w64 t
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 01:17:43AM +0100, Stephen Kitt wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 08:16:01PM +0100, Stephen Kitt wrote:
> > > As far as the naming is concerned, see #622276 for details. I've thought
> > > about splitting the packages up, with separate 32- and 64-bit targets, but
> > > I'm n
Hi Ron,
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 07:36:28 +1030, Ron wrote:
> I was hoping you'd actually been cc'd on this :)
I was a few days behind debian-devel so I found out aboud the discussion
thanks to Fabian's bug report, which you will have received too ;-).
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 08:16:01PM +0100, Ste
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Stephen Kitt wrote:
> I've thought
> about splitting the packages up, with separate 32- and 64-bit targets, but
> I'm not sure whether replacing and providing the mingw32 packages would be
> correct, since mingw-w64 isn't a drop-in replacement (the triplets are
>
Hi Stephen,
I was hoping you'd actually been cc'd on this :)
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 08:16:01PM +0100, Stephen Kitt wrote:
> As far as the naming is concerned, see #622276 for details. I've thought
> about splitting the packages up, with separate 32- and 64-bit targets, but
> I'm not sure wheth
Hi Fabian (and all the other participants in this thread),
On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 13:33:14 +0100, Fabian Greffrath
wrote:
> Is there a principle behind all this or where can I help to clean this
> up? ;)
The history has been explained by others. I've been working for a while on
dropping at least g
13 matches
Mail list logo
