Kurt Roeckx writes:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 06:45:50PM +0200, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 07:54:59PM +0200, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
>> > > If I may ask, for what purpose do the buildds have a special list o
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 06:45:50PM +0200, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 07:54:59PM +0200, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
> > > If I may ask, for what purpose do the buildds have a special list of
> > > packages above and b
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 07:54:59PM +0200, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
> > If I may ask, for what purpose do the buildds have a special list of
> > packages above and beyond those in unstable?
>
> So that in case various packages have to be build
[Lennart Sorensen]
> Oh OK, so there is no build dependancy issue at all then (since no one
> would be dumb enough to make a package that build depends on one of its
> own binaries, would they?).
You didn't read the beginning of the thread, I guess? This is a
situation much like gcc, where the c
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 07:59:12PM +0200, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
> It's all one source package. I split it up the binaries because:
> 1) about 60% of the package could be in an 'all' package.
> 2) the runtime components for different architectures can be installed
> side-by-side... thus enabling
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Lennart Sorensen <
lsore...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> Does mlton-basis depend on mlton-runtime or mlton-compiler to build?
>
If the answer is yes, then most likely these should not be three seperate
>
source packages.
>
It's all one source package. I split it
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Note that in unstable you don't see the arch arch all version
> until the arch any version is also available. Or you would see
> the old arch all version until the new arch any version is
> available.
>
That's great! My thanks to whomever ha
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 07:54:59PM +0200, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
> The problem is that the buildds currently also see the newer
> > arch all version. But this version will go away after some
> > time and it will only see the version from unstable.
> >
>
> If I may ask, for what purpose do the
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 06:58:36PM +0200, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
> > As long as the Packages file for the buildds mentions this arch
> > all package, no buildd can build it, because it only considers
> > installing the latest version. Bu
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 06:58:36PM +0200, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
> I hope what you're telling me is true, because it will save me a lot of
> work! :)
>
> What I don't understand about your explanation: once the new all+i386 .debs
> hit unstable, won't the buildds see the new 'all' package in u
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> As long as the Packages file for the buildds mentions this arch
> all package, no buildd can build it, because it only considers
> installing the latest version. But it should get removed
> from that file after 24 or 32 hours or something. I
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 05:52:23PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> As far as I can tell the problem is that you switched the mlton binary
> package to 'Architecture: all'. Which means it's available on all
> architectures already in the new version, even though it's not
> installable.
If I underst
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Julien Cristau wrote:
> As far as I can tell the problem is that you switched the mlton binary
> package to 'Architecture: all'. Which means it's available on all
> architectures already in the new version, even though it's not
> installable.
>
Ahh! That makes a
Hi,
Am Dienstag, den 29.03.2011, 17:52 +0200 schrieb Julien Cristau:
> > *mlton/alpha dependency installability problem:*
> >
> > mlton (= 20100608-3) build-depends on one of:
> > - mlton (= 20100608-3)
> >
> > ... this is, of course, impossible. The buildd must install the old version
> > i
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 17:25:14 +0200, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
> I've read that there was a recent change made to the buildd resolution with
> regards to ensuring that consistent package versions are used on the builds
> [0]. Is it possible that this changed also messed up self-dependency
> res
I've read that there was a recent change made to the buildd resolution with
regards to ensuring that consistent package versions are used on the builds
[0]. Is it possible that this changed also messed up self-dependency
resolution?
My package, mlton, has a versioned dependency on itself for versi
16 matches
Mail list logo
