On Monday, October 28, 2013 12:15:09 PM Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Le 27/10/2013 16:30, Daniel Schepler a écrit :
(To be honest, the
Java packages are such a tangled mess that I've given up on trying to
bootstrap that part of the archive for now -- and many of those do get
pulled into the
Le 27/10/2013 16:30, Daniel Schepler a écrit :
(To be honest, the
Java packages are such a tangled mess that I've given up on trying to
bootstrap that part of the archive for now -- and many of those do get pulled
into the minimal set of ca. 1473 source packages I get with my criteria.)
Hi Peter,
Quoting peter green (2013-10-27 01:11:24)
Johannes Schauer wrote:
Until these two issues are fixed we will not be able to get an algorithmic
answer to the question of what constitutes the minimum required set of
packages.
There is also the complication of what I will call
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Johannes Schauer wrote:
Surely every maintainer of source packages involved in a Type 1 Self-Cycle
knows about this issue. Because Type 2 Self-Cycles are non-obvious we could in
the future (once build profiles are available) embed this information in the
pts
Johannes Schauer wrote:
Indeed, none of the Type 1 Self-Cycles are needed to bootstrap the core of
Debian. Unfortunately though, most of the Type 2 Self-Cycles are. You will
find
many surprising (at least to me) examples in the section of Type 2
Self-Cycles under the above link.
On the other
Hi Daniel,
Quoting Daniel Schepler (2013-10-27 16:06:43)
Johannes Schauer wrote:
Indeed, none of the Type 1 Self-Cycles are needed to bootstrap the core of
Debian. Unfortunately though, most of the Type 2 Self-Cycles are. You will
find
many surprising (at least to me) examples in the
Am 27.10.2013 16:06, schrieb Daniel Schepler:
Johannes Schauer wrote:
Indeed, none of the Type 1 Self-Cycles are needed to bootstrap the core of
Debian. Unfortunately though, most of the Type 2 Self-Cycles are. You will
find
many surprising (at least to me) examples in the section of Type 2
7 matches
Mail list logo
