On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:12:44 +0900,
Paul Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm curious why you are using sarge? Any particular reason or just intertia?
Just inertia; I forgot to buy etch DVDs. (I don't have enough bandwidth
to do apt-get upgrade without DVDs.)
--
Oohara Yuuma [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:26:31 +0100,
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We do our best to support partial upgrades, but supporting compilation
of (testing/unstable) packages on machines which are running a partially
upgraded olstable is not something we target.
I read the policy again
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:36:39 +0100,
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, Oohara Yuuma wrote:
According to the changelog, substvars source:Version is added in
dpkg-dev 1.13.19. A package which uses source:Version in its
debian/control and doesn't set its value
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 6:41 PM, Oohara Yuuma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fixing build-essential does fix it at least for my case; my machine
was partially-upgraded sarge. Is versioned dependency for preventing
such stupidity?
I'm curious why you are using sarge? Any particular reason or
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Oohara Yuuma wrote:
This is not needed:
- updating build-essential would update it for lenny/sid only
- only oldstable (sarge) has a dpkg version that doesn't support it
Thus fixing build-essential doesn't fix it for the only case where it's
broken, when building
According to the changelog, substvars source:Version is added in
dpkg-dev 1.13.19. A package which uses source:Version in its
debian/control and doesn't set its value explicitly can't be built
with ancient dpkg-dev. The problem is that dpkg-dev in the
build-essential list is dpkg-dev (= 1.13.5),
6 matches
Mail list logo
