Package: wnpp
Owner: Dimitri John Ledkov
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: libnih.la
Version : 1.0.4 (git snapshot)
Upstream Author : Dimitri John Ledkov (DD), Scott James Remnant (DD)
* URL or Web page : https://github.com/xnox/libnih/tree/kfreebsd
http://libnih.la/
* License
On 4 January 2014 15:46, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le samedi 04 janvier 2014 à 12:47 +, Ian Jackson a écrit :
>> Uoti Urpala writes ("Bug#727708: init system discussion status"):
>> > Your earlier wording sounds
>> > like it was talking about the former ("installable") and Ian's proposal
>> >
On 4 January 2014 23:16, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 06:59:46PM +0000, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
>> Also it is sad that systemd upstream is actively promoting for
>> everyone to execute runtime checks of is systemd-init pid1,...
> This is d
On 5 January 2014 00:07, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> Uoti Urpala writes:
>> On Fri, 2014-01-03 at 20:26 -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>>> Clint Adams writes:
>>> > On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 10:02:01AM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>>> >> or alternatively
>>> >>
>>> >> 4. Packages may, however, depend on a
On 4 January 2014 23:13, Sjoerd Simons wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-01-04 at 09:56 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Sjoerd Simons writes:
>
>> > Not having the logind interface is a lot harder to cope with and
>> > something that will not only impact Gnome. So essentially the most
>> > likely impact of usi
On 5 January 2014 01:26, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Dimitri John Ledkov writes:
>
>> This confirms that systemd is not generic across all upstreams and all
>> distributions, and everyone is maintaining their own (in part influenced
>> by release cadence, and well distro-spec
On 4 January 2014 19:42, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Dimitri John Ledkov
>
>> Also which upstream are staying with? systemd upstream git history[4]
>> has only one branch, which is linear with linear version number
>> increments, without any stable release branches or
On 5 January 2014 01:46, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Dimitri John Ledkov writes:
>
>> Imho that's a gross overstatement. Over more than a year, an Ubuntu
>> GNOME team was established and became official ubuntu flavour with so
>> goal and purpose of shipping GNOME3 in it&
On 10 February 2014 11:37, Craig Bransworth wrote:
> Please a GR to override this ...
>
The Debian Project welcomes and encourages participation by everyone.
No matter how you identify yourself or how others perceive you: we
welcome you. We welcome contributions from everyone as long as they
int
On 3 May 2014 09:31, Daniel Baumann
wrote:
> Steve,
>
> first of all: why haven't you just talked to me? you know more then well
> that i've kindly and quickly responded to all your bug reports, on and
> offline. #746715 sounds like shooting with a nuclear weapon on little
> glitch.
>
> seccond, i
On 29 October 2014 06:32, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> Matthias contended that the default method to build a gcc cross compiler
> works with multiarch:
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=766708#73
>
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 03:50:59PM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
>> Why is with_deps_on_
Comparing squeeze and jessies - have things regressed? if yes, how?
As far as I expect, the way one uses debian source packaging to
produce cross toolchains has not changed, nor has been affected by
changes in jessie, in comparison to squeeze.
Multiarch cross-building - a brand new set of feature
On 21 November 2014 at 19:21, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>>> "Dimitri" == Dimitri John Ledkov writes:
>
> Dimitri> Comparing squeeze and jessies - have things regressed? if
> Dimitri> yes, how? As far as I expect, the way one uses debian
>
On 22 November 2014 at 16:21, Ron wrote:
>
> Dimitri wrote:
>> Thus multiarch cross tooling is not so relevant for fresh bootstraps,
>> and/or targeting non-debian architectures, or otherwise incomplete
>> systems (e.g. those that do not have compatible set of pre-compiled
>> binaries that use mul
Reading this bug report title & history, it is very misleading.
Building cross-toolchains, and cross-toolchains that are multiarch
compatible has been possible to do before (stable) and is possible in
current planned release (testing).
I have provided the documentation links to that in
https://bu
On 23 November 2014 at 11:23, Ron wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 08:51:41PM +0000, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
>> On 22 November 2014 at 16:21, Ron wrote:
>> >
>> > Dimitri wrote:
>> >> Thus multiarch cross tooling is not so relevant for fresh bootst
16 matches
Mail list logo
