On Wed, 23, Mar, 2011 at 08:15:52AM +0900, Charles Plessy spoke thus..
> Le Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 11:54:47AM +, Mark Hymers a écrit :
> >
> > I'm not entirely sure where this should be documented, it's not really a
> > policy thing as it's specific to the archive. Suggestions welcome.
>
> Sin
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:59:11AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
>As a side note the debian-cd package needs to also consider Built-Using
>when creating source images.
Yup, we'll need to consider that. I'm looking forwards to having all
the stuff we need properly dealt with, however it's do
On 23/03/2011 11:59, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Philipp Kern writes:
On 2011-03-23, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Also does the testing transition consider the Built-Using? If I specify
'Built-Using: gcc-4.5 (= 4.5.2-5)' will the package be blocked from
entering testing until gcc-4.5 (= 4.5.2
Philipp Kern writes:
> On 2011-03-23, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Also does the testing transition consider the Built-Using? If I specify
>> 'Built-Using: gcc-4.5 (= 4.5.2-5)' will the package be blocked from
>> entering testing until gcc-4.5 (= 4.5.2-5) has entered and block gcc-4.5
>> (= 4.
On 2011-03-23, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Also does the testing transition consider the Built-Using? If I specify
> 'Built-Using: gcc-4.5 (= 4.5.2-5)' will the package be blocked from
> entering testing until gcc-4.5 (= 4.5.2-5) has entered and block gcc-4.5
> (= 4.5.2-5) from being replaced fr
Mark Hymers writes:
> On Tue, 22, Mar, 2011 at 01:57:42PM +, Hector Oron spoke thus..
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> 2011/3/22 Mark Hymers :
>>
>> > The current design is the Binary packages can contain an additional
>> > control field: Built-Using.
>>
>> First of all, thanks very much for taking care
Mark Hymers writes:
> On Mon, 14, Mar, 2011 at 02:04:30PM +, Hector Oron spoke thus..
>> Hi,
>>
>> 2009/11/2 Mark Hymers :
>> > On Mon, 02, Nov, 2009 at 12:43:42PM +, Philipp Kern spoke thus..
>> >> Of course it is a sane approach but very special care needs to be taken
>> >> when
>> >>
Le Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 11:54:47AM +, Mark Hymers a écrit :
>
> I'm not entirely sure where this should be documented, it's not really a
> policy thing as it's specific to the archive. Suggestions welcome.
Dear all,
Since the binary package control files is documented in the Policy, that wi
On Tue, 22, Mar, 2011 at 01:57:42PM +, Hector Oron spoke thus..
> Hi Mark,
>
> 2011/3/22 Mark Hymers :
>
> > The current design is the Binary packages can contain an additional
> > control field: Built-Using.
>
> First of all, thanks very much for taking care of it, that probably
> will get
>> The current design is the Binary packages can contain an additional
>> control field: Built-Using.
> First of all, thanks very much for taking care of it, that probably
> will get us going.
> I just would like to point out that current design solves half of
> the problem (being GPL compliant
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 14:33:09 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 22.03.2011 14:20, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > On 2011-03-22, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >>> The current design is the Binary packages can contain an additional
> > ^^
> >>> control field: Built-Using.
> >
Hi Mark,
2011/3/22 Mark Hymers :
> The current design is the Binary packages can contain an additional
> control field: Built-Using.
First of all, thanks very much for taking care of it, that probably
will get us going.
I just would like to point out that current design solves half of
the pr
On 22.03.2011 14:20, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 2011-03-22, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>> The current design is the Binary packages can contain an additional
> ^^
>>> control field: Built-Using.
> [...]
>> that would be too strict for e.g. gcj-4.5
>> Built-Using: gcc-4.5
On Tue, 22, Mar, 2011 at 01:51:00PM +0100, Matthias Klose spoke thus..
> that would be too strict for e.g. gcj-4.5
>
> Built-Using: gcc-4.5 (>= 4.5.2-1~), gcc-4.5 (<< 4.5.3)
>
> would be correct, however this already can be expressed in the build
> dependencies, so I assume packages like gcj-4.x,
On 2011-03-22, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> The current design is the Binary packages can contain an additional
^^
>> control field: Built-Using.
[...]
> that would be too strict for e.g. gcj-4.5
> Built-Using: gcc-4.5 (>= 4.5.2-1~), gcc-4.5 (<< 4.5.3)
> would be corre
On Tue, 22, Mar, 2011 at 12:18:31PM +, Simon McVittie spoke thus..
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 at 11:54:47 +, Mark Hymers wrote:
> > the main people [Built-Using] should be used by, as far as I know are
> > cross-compiler builders and the d-i and kernel-wedge people
>
> Also the ia32-libs family
On 22.03.2011 12:54, Mark Hymers wrote:
> On Mon, 14, Mar, 2011 at 02:04:30PM +, Hector Oron spoke thus..
>> Hi,
>>
>> 2009/11/2 Mark Hymers :
>>> On Mon, 02, Nov, 2009 at 12:43:42PM +, Philipp Kern spoke thus..
Of course it is a sane approach but very special care needs to be taken
>
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 at 11:54:47 +, Mark Hymers wrote:
> the main people [Built-Using] should be used by, as far as I know are
> cross-compiler builders and the d-i and kernel-wedge people
Also the ia32-libs family of packages, until they get superseded by multiarch?
S
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
On Mon, 14, Mar, 2011 at 02:04:30PM +, Hector Oron spoke thus..
> Hi,
>
> 2009/11/2 Mark Hymers :
> > On Mon, 02, Nov, 2009 at 12:43:42PM +, Philipp Kern spoke thus..
> >> Of course it is a sane approach but very special care needs to be taken
> >> when
> >> releasing to ensure GPL compli
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 02:04:30PM +, Hector Oron wrote:
> the package is not optimal, but once we got multiarch support, it should
> be renamed to `binutils-armel' (or similar name) and use linux and eglibc
> libraries and headers provided by multiarch.
Please note that building such a packag
Hi,
2009/11/2 Mark Hymers :
> On Mon, 02, Nov, 2009 at 12:43:42PM +, Philipp Kern spoke thus..
>> Of course it is a sane approach but very special care needs to be taken when
>> releasing to ensure GPL compliance. So what we should get is support in the
>> toolchain to declare against what so
Loïc Minier writes:
> On Mon, Nov 02, 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> If gcc maintainers agree include a dummy gcc-source-armel package with
>> Depends: gcc-source (= 1.2-3). That way the cross build package will
>> require the right source. It ensures they always enter/leave testing
>> as a
On Mon, Nov 02, 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> If gcc maintainers agree include a dummy gcc-source-armel package with
> Depends: gcc-source (= 1.2-3). That way the cross build package will
> require the right source. It ensures they always enter/leave testing
> as a pair.
I think that would
Hi
(We also had separate discussions Hector, Matthias and I, sometimes
including debian-embedded@ and/or Neil Williams -- I'm catching up on
the debian-devel@ thread.)
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009, Hector Oron wrote:
> I would like to do a little explanation on the ITP I have filled for
> {l
Neil Williams writes:
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:11:06 +0100
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
>> > As mentioned off-list, I disagree strongly. sysroot - as it
>> > appears at the moment - retains the hacks in dpkg-cross which means that
>> > cross-building anything more complex than a trivial rootf
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:11:06 +0100
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > As mentioned off-list, I disagree strongly. sysroot - as it
> > appears at the moment - retains the hacks in dpkg-cross which means that
> > cross-building anything more complex than a trivial rootfs becomes
> > impossible. Cross-
Hello,
2009/11/4 Goswin von Brederlow :
> Neil Williams writes:
While being highly interesting talk to me, this discussion is no
relevant to the ITP. I would suggest to either fork the thread or
discuss at debian-embed...@l.d.o
Thanks ! I appreciate your comments.
--
Héctor Orón
--
To UNSU
Neil Williams writes:
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:22:14 +0100
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
>> Hector Oron writes:
>>
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > 2009/11/2 Goswin von Brederlow :
>> >> Why do you need --sysroot support? Or what prevents a --sysroot
>> >> of / when using the multiarch directories?
>>
Hector Oron writes:
> Hello,
>
> 2009/11/2 Goswin von Brederlow :
>> Why do you need --sysroot support? Or what prevents a --sysroot of /
>> when using the multiarch directories?
>>
>> It seems like wasted work with multiarch being a release goal for
>> squeeze. Hop on the wagon and make it work
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:22:14 +0100
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Hector Oron writes:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > 2009/11/2 Goswin von Brederlow :
> >> Why do you need --sysroot support? Or what prevents a --sysroot
> >> of / when using the multiarch directories?
> >>
> >> It seems like wasted work wit
Hello,
2009/11/2 Goswin von Brederlow :
> Why do you need --sysroot support? Or what prevents a --sysroot of /
> when using the multiarch directories?
>
> It seems like wasted work with multiarch being a release goal for
> squeeze. Hop on the wagon and make it work for you too.
As you already kno
On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 07:31 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Ben Hutchings:
>
> > You can disagree all you like, but I believe that the FTP team will
> > currently reject any new packages that use source code from their build-
> > dependencies.
>
> Surely this is not true because that would rule
* Ben Hutchings:
> You can disagree all you like, but I believe that the FTP team will
> currently reject any new packages that use source code from their build-
> dependencies.
Surely this is not true because that would rule out many programs
written in C++.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian
On Mon, 02, Nov, 2009 at 12:43:42PM +, Philipp Kern spoke thus..
> Of course it is a sane approach but very special care needs to be taken when
> releasing to ensure GPL compliance. So what we should get is support in the
> toolchain to declare against what source package the upload was built
Hector Oron writes:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to do a little explanation on the ITP I have filled for
> {linux,binutils,eglibc,gcc-4.3,gcc-4.4,gdb}-armel.
>
> These set of packages provide a cross toolchain for armel targets to
> be built on i386 and amd64 platforms (maybe ppc could be added)
Ben Hutchings writes:
> On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 23:14 +0100, Hector Oron wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I would like to do a little explanation on the ITP I have filled for
>> {linux,binutils,eglibc,gcc-4.3,gcc-4.4,gdb}-armel.
>>
>> These set of packages provide a cross toolchain for armel targets to
On 2009-11-02, Hector Oron wrote:
> 2009/11/2 Mike Hommey :
>> On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 12:25:16PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>>> So if that is a problem - why not enhance the gcc packaging to build the
>>> cross-compiler packages?
>> Combinatorial explosion ?
> We took this approach, and we have
Hi,
2009/11/2 Mike Hommey :
> On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 12:25:16PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> So if that is a problem - why not enhance the gcc packaging to build the
>> cross-compiler packages?
>
> Combinatorial explosion ?
We took this approach, and we have been building this way.
Binutils, G
On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 12:25:16PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> > You can disagree all you like, but I believe that the FTP team will
> > currently reject any new packages that use source code from their build-
> > dependencies. It would likely be a waste of Hector's tim
On 02.11.2009 03:19, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Mon, 2009-11-02 at 02:34 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 02.11.2009 00:00, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 23:14 +0100, Hector Oron wrote:
Hello,
I would like to do a little explanation on the ITP I have filled for
{linux,binutils,eg
Ben Hutchings wrote:
> You can disagree all you like, but I believe that the FTP team will
> currently reject any new packages that use source code from their build-
> dependencies. It would likely be a waste of Hector's time to continue
> with this approach.
So if that is a problem - why not en
On Mon, 2009-11-02 at 02:34 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 02.11.2009 00:00, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 23:14 +0100, Hector Oron wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >>I would like to do a little explanation on the ITP I have filled for
> >> {linux,binutils,eglibc,gcc-4.3,gcc-4.4,gd
On 02.11.2009 00:00, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 23:14 +0100, Hector Oron wrote:
Hello,
I would like to do a little explanation on the ITP I have filled for
{linux,binutils,eglibc,gcc-4.3,gcc-4.4,gdb}-armel.
These set of packages provide a cross toolchain for armel targets
On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 23:14 +0100, Hector Oron wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to do a little explanation on the ITP I have filled for
> {linux,binutils,eglibc,gcc-4.3,gcc-4.4,gdb}-armel.
>
> These set of packages provide a cross toolchain for armel targets to
> be built on i386 and amd64 pl
Hello,
I would like to do a little explanation on the ITP I have filled for
{linux,binutils,eglibc,gcc-4.3,gcc-4.4,gdb}-armel.
These set of packages provide a cross toolchain for armel targets to
be built on i386 and amd64 platforms (maybe ppc could be added)
In order to avoid code duplica
45 matches
Mail list logo
