On Saturday, April 6, 2024 7:39:10 A.M. CDT Michael R. Crusoe wrote:
> On 29/03/2024 19.44, Steven Robbins wrote:
> > I am left with a question whether [reactively dropping troublesome
> > architectures] is what you are proposing, or
> > whether you mean to preemptively restrict the architectures
On 02/04/2024 07.54, Andreas Tille wrote:
Hi,
Am Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 09:12:49PM +0200 schrieb Sascha Steinbiss:
New packages that aren't "Architecture: all": 1. Add
"architecture-is-64-bit" and "architecture-is-little-endian" to the
"Build-Depends" list in "debian/control".
Nice, didn't
On 30/03/2024 01.00, Diane Trout wrote:
On Thu, 2024-03-28 at 14:51 +0100, Michael R. Crusoe wrote:
Like all policy proposals, this is not meant to be a hard rule for
all time. We can and should revisit the issue later!
What do you think of the policy being instead of "-med team packages
On 29/03/2024 19.44, Steven Robbins wrote:
On Thursday, March 28, 2024 8:51:01 A.M. CDT Michael R. Crusoe wrote:
Therefore I personally conclude that:
Support Debian-Med packages for 32-bit and/or big-endian architectures is
not a good use of our limited resources.
I am left with a question
On 29/03/2024 07.21, Andreas Tille wrote:
Hi,
I'm personally fine with Michaels suggestion in general.
:+1:
Am Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 10:13:40AM +0530 schrieb Nilesh Patra:
On 28 March 2024 7:21:01 pm IST, "Michael R. Crusoe" wrote:
There are also packages inside debian med umbrella
On 29/03/2024 05.43, Nilesh Patra wrote:
On 28 March 2024 7:21:01 pm IST, "Michael R. Crusoe" wrote:
Alas this is an involved process. If we have to do it a lot, it would be nice
if someone writes a tool to automate any aspect of the above!
---
Fweh, that's a long email. Please do share
On 01/04/2024 21.12, Sascha Steinbiss wrote:
Hi all,
first of all thanks Michael for this idea and also for the elaborate
proposal email that outlines the intended way to go quite well.
Thanks!
[...]
Support Debian-Med packages for 32-bit and/or big-endian architectures is not a
good
On 28/03/2024 14.51, Michael R. Crusoe wrote:
Dear colleagues and users,
[snip]
Fweh, that's a long email. Please do share your feedback here and on the
Debian-Med Matrix channel for instant discussions:
https://app.element.io/#/room/#debian-med:matrix.org
Thank you all for the thoughtful
Hi,
Am Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 09:12:49PM +0200 schrieb Sascha Steinbiss:
>
> > If there is agreement with this, then I would like an amend the
> > Debain-Med team policy to make it clear that we, as a community of
> > package maintainers and users, are okay with removing support for 32-bit
> >
Hi all,
first of all thanks Michael for this idea and also for the elaborate
proposal email that outlines the intended way to go quite well.
[...]
Support Debian-Med packages for 32-bit and/or big-endian
architectures is not a good use of our limited resources.
Agreed.
[...]
However, I
On Thu, 2024-03-28 at 14:51 +0100, Michael R. Crusoe wrote:
>
> Like all policy proposals, this is not meant to be a hard rule for
> all time. We can and should revisit the issue later!
What do you think of the policy being instead of "-med team packages
MUST support all current Debian
On Thursday, March 28, 2024 8:51:01 A.M. CDT Michael R. Crusoe wrote:
> Therefore I personally conclude that:
> Support Debian-Med packages for 32-bit and/or big-endian architectures is
> not a good use of our limited resources.
I've used that as a personal policy for years.
In my case, I
Hello,
On 2024-03-29 06:43, Nilesh Patra wrote:> There are also packages inside
debian med umbrella which are not necessarily related to medicine or
bioinformatics. These include some general purpose python packages, some
C/C++ libraries et. al. There are packages that reverse-depend on the
Hi Charles,
Am Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 03:48:07PM +0900 schrieb Charles Plessy:
> > For the moment it would be easy to make sure at least new r-bioc-*
> > packages are restricted to the said architectures by adding this to
> > dh-r.
>
> I fully agree.
I've pushed an (only weakly tested) patch to
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 07:21:27AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Am Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 10:13:40AM +0530 schrieb Nilesh Patra:
> > On 28 March 2024 7:21:01 pm IST, "Michael R. Crusoe"
> > wrote:
> > >and on the Debian-Med Matrix channel for instant discussions:
> >
Le Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 07:21:27AM +0100, Andreas Tille a écrit :
>
> For the moment it would be easy to make sure at least new r-bioc-*
> packages are restricted to the said architectures by adding this to
> dh-r.
I fully agree.
By the way the next Bioconductor is scheduled for May 1st,
Hi,
I'm personally fine with Michaels suggestion in general.
Am Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 10:13:40AM +0530 schrieb Nilesh Patra:
>
>
> On 28 March 2024 7:21:01 pm IST, "Michael R. Crusoe"
> wrote:
>
> There are also packages inside debian med umbrella which are not necessarily
> related to
On 28 March 2024 7:21:01 pm IST, "Michael R. Crusoe" wrote:
>Alas this is an involved process. If we have to do it a lot, it would be nice
>if someone writes a tool to automate any aspect of the above!
>
>---
>
>Fweh, that's a long email. Please do share your feedback here
There are also
Dear colleagues and users,
I would like to propose a change to the Debian-Med team policy:
https://med-team.pages.debian.net/policy/
Given that:
1. The package maintainers in the Debian-Med community are volunteers, and all
of us have many other demands of our time
2. Debian-Med is targeting
19 matches
Mail list logo
