On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 04:32:22PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> Why not build against testing by default, and have something auto-build
> against unstable and report to the maintainers of the package that won't
> build and the libary it won't build against whenever there is an error?
Many problems,
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 05:25:28PM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 12:13:42PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >I'm not saying this is the only way that can happen; VNC could just
> >have been built first and never rebuilt against the new libc6. That
> >happens a lot. But t
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 12:13:42PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
I'm not saying this is the only way that can happen; VNC could just
have been built first and never rebuilt against the new libc6. That
happens a lot. But this way you can upload packages which are already
unbuildable.
That's bad,
Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm not saying this is the only way that can happen; VNC could just
> have been built first and never rebuilt against the new libc6. That
> happens a lot. But this way you can upload packages which are already
> unbuildable.
>
> That's bad, mmkay
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 02:00:08AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Steve Greenland said:
> >On 20-Nov-02, 17:43 (CST), Mike Fedyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 04:34:20PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> >> >
> >> > And then when libc6 2.3.x dropped into testing, and bro
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 08:36:43AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 02:00:08AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > Clearly we need to test the libc6 in unstable to see if it breaks forward
> > compatibility. Building packages in unstable against the "old" libc6
> > (while
> >
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 02:00:08AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Clearly we need to test the libc6 in unstable to see if it breaks forward
> compatibility. Building packages in unstable against the "old" libc6 (while
> running them aganist the new one!) does just that. If we build everything
Steve Greenland said:
>On 20-Nov-02, 17:43 (CST), Mike Fedyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 04:34:20PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
>> >
>> > And then when libc6 2.3.x dropped into testing, and broke xvncviewer, it
>> > would be broken in testing as well as unstable. Yes,
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 05:40:39PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> Nice, (btw, this is documented in man apt_preferences) but how do you know
> there is a new version available in experemental from apt-cache?
apt-cache policy
--
- mdz
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 02:29:48AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
Nothing is installed from experimental because of dependencies.. you
have to be explicit about each and every package.
Either it automatically installs upgraded packages, potentially
clobbering something you don't want clobbered, or i
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 05:40:39PM -0800, Mike Fedyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
> Nice, (btw, this is documented in man apt_preferences) but how do you know
> there is a new version available in experemental from apt-cache?
apt-cache show or showpkg will show this..
Daniel
--
/-
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 02:29:48AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Michael Stone
>
> | On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 10:26:37AM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> | > Yes, please use experemental more than it is now.
> |
> | Please never use experimental. I much prefer private apt repositories
> | with disc
* Michael Stone
| On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 10:26:37AM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
| > Yes, please use experemental more than it is now.
|
| Please never use experimental. I much prefer private apt repositories
| with discrete units (e.g., an X repository or gnome repository) over
| experimental, whi
13 matches
Mail list logo
