I got caught out by this apt bug when handling sasview. I had installed
a local build of sasview with my patch for 4.2.0~git20180309-3. Stuart
Prescott added another patch and uploaded.
I assumed apt had picked up on the update and installed the final,
official version. But it hadn't, even though
hi,
while I very much like this idea, please don't store md5sums, but rather
sha256sums.
Thank you!
--
cheers,
Holger (wondering why I seem to have to write this in 2017)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 03:16:52PM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 02:14:16PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > I also want this for delta debs, to identify local rebuilds being
> > installed, and prevent delta installation failure in such cases.
>
> yay another user!
>
On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 02:14:16PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> I also want this for delta debs, to identify local rebuilds being
> installed, and prevent delta installation failure in such cases.
yay another user!
> > To me it seems that:
> > * we are mostly interested in the hash of the
On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 06:20:01PM +, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> Package: dpkg
> Version: 1.18.3
> Severity: wishlist
> X-Debbugs-CC: reproducible-bui...@lists.alioth.debian.org
>
> Hi dpkg people,
>
> in the context of allowing to recreate the same build-environment of a
> past build we would n
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.18.3
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: reproducible-bui...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Hi dpkg people,
in the context of allowing to recreate the same build-environment of a
past build we would need to know which packages where installed.
Currently we rely on (pkgname, arch, v
6 matches
Mail list logo
