Akdeniz Göz Merkezi her zaman oldugu gibi tum lens cesitlerini en uygun
fiyatlarla sizlere sunmaktadir.
Ustelik bir telefon yada e-mail ile adresinize teslim.
AKDENIZ GOZ MERKEZI www.akdenizgoz.com
Fevzipasa cad. No:73 Fatih / Istanbul 0 212 635 74 74
Is it acceptable to downgrade a serious bug to important if it is a build
error on an arch that has never built correctly in the past?
The problem is being worked on, it's just taking a little time, and I see no
reason to make users of another architecture suffer because of this.
--
To
I thought the main problem was this strange combination - I removed it to
no avail, and fiddled with the line until I got the problem: I removed the
first dependency (${shlibs:Depends}), and it worked correctly.
I have always seen this thing in the dependencies, and I still don't know
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Must all packages be maintained primarily in i386 format? I have a SPARC
platform and was considering the idea of contributing to Debian through
package management. Would I need to set up an i386 based system in
addition to my Debian SPARC?
- -Matt
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 04:49:40PM -0600, Matthew Twomey wrote:
Must all packages be maintained primarily in i386 format?
No, a number of people upload on other architectures. There's an i386
autobuilder which picks up the differences.
I have a SPARC platform and was considering the idea of
On Mon, 01 Apr 2002, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
On 01-Apr-2002 Will Newton wrote:
Is it acceptable to downgrade a serious bug to important if it is a build
error on an arch that has never built correctly in the past?
The problem is being worked on, it's just taking a little time, and I
Matt Zimmerman dijo:
That description needs to be clarified...when a bug is tagged pending,
it is listed on the BTS web pages as pending upload, which implies
that the bug has been fixed, but the fix is not yet uploaded. This is
useful information to have, and seems to be the general
Hi!
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 04:01:49PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Hi,
I have been working on a particular package on my workstation, which runs
Sid. Now, I was some days away from my office, and had only my laptop
(Potato). As my package is not too complicated, I decided to modify it to
be
- In control, I decreased the standards-version from 3.5.2 to 3.0.1
My question may be stupid, but is it really useful to decrease the
stardards-version ? I know that potato's lintian issues a warning for
newer-standards-version, but it sounds rather pointless when
backporting a package
I have been working on a particular package on my workstation, which runs
Sid. Now, I was some days away from my office, and had only my laptop
(Potato). As my package is not too complicated, I decided to modify it to
be built with Potato successfully - As I guessed, it was fairly easy...
* Matthew Twomey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
Must all packages be maintained primarily in i386 format? I have a SPARC
platform and was considering the idea of contributing to Debian through
package management. Would I need to set up an i386 based system in
addition to my Debian SPARC?
no,
Is it acceptable to downgrade a serious bug to important if it is a build
error on an arch that has never built correctly in the past?
The problem is being worked on, it's just taking a little time, and I see no
reason to make users of another architecture suffer because of this.
--
To
On 01-Apr-2002 Will Newton wrote:
Is it acceptable to downgrade a serious bug to important if it is a build
error on an arch that has never built correctly in the past?
The problem is being worked on, it's just taking a little time, and I see no
reason to make users of another
Hi,
I have been working on a particular package on my workstation, which runs
Sid. Now, I was some days away from my office, and had only my laptop
(Potato). As my package is not too complicated, I decided to modify it to
be built with Potato successfully - As I guessed, it was fairly easy...
The
I thought the main problem was this strange combination - I removed it to
no avail, and fiddled with the line until I got the problem: I removed the
first dependency (${shlibs:Depends}), and it worked correctly.
I have always seen this thing in the dependencies, and I still don't know
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Must all packages be maintained primarily in i386 format? I have a SPARC
platform and was considering the idea of contributing to Debian through
package management. Would I need to set up an i386 based system in
addition to my Debian SPARC?
- -Matt
On 01-Apr-2002 Matthew Twomey wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Must all packages be maintained primarily in i386 format? I have a SPARC
platform and was considering the idea of contributing to Debian through
package management. Would I need to set up an i386 based
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 04:49:40PM -0600, Matthew Twomey wrote:
Must all packages be maintained primarily in i386 format?
No, a number of people upload on other architectures. There's an i386
autobuilder which picks up the differences.
I have a SPARC platform and was considering the idea of
On Mon, 1 Apr 2002, Matthew Twomey wrote:
Must all packages be maintained primarily in i386 format? I have a SPARC
platform and was considering the idea of contributing to Debian through
package management. Would I need to set up an i386 based system in
addition to my Debian SPARC?
No, many
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 04:01:49PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
dpkg-deb: parse error, in file `debian/tutos/DEBIAN/control' near line 7
package `tutos':
`Depends' field, missing package name, or garbage where package name expected
dh_builddeb: command returned error code
make: ***
On Mon, 01 Apr 2002, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
On 01-Apr-2002 Will Newton wrote:
Is it acceptable to downgrade a serious bug to important if it is a build
error on an arch that has never built correctly in the past?
The problem is being worked on, it's just taking a little time, and I
Matt Zimmerman dijo:
That description needs to be clarified...when a bug is tagged pending,
it is listed on the BTS web pages as pending upload, which implies
that the bug has been fixed, but the fix is not yet uploaded. This is
useful information to have, and seems to be the general
Hi!
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 04:01:49PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Hi,
I have been working on a particular package on my workstation, which runs
Sid. Now, I was some days away from my office, and had only my laptop
(Potato). As my package is not too complicated, I decided to modify it to
be
- In control, I decreased the standards-version from 3.5.2 to 3.0.1
My question may be stupid, but is it really useful to decrease the
stardards-version ? I know that potato's lintian issues a warning for
newer-standards-version, but it sounds rather pointless when
backporting a package
I have been working on a particular package on my workstation, which runs
Sid. Now, I was some days away from my office, and had only my laptop
(Potato). As my package is not too complicated, I decided to modify it to
be built with Potato successfully - As I guessed, it was fairly easy...
Akdeniz Göz Merkezi her zaman oldugu gibi tum lens cesitlerini en uygun
fiyatlarla sizlere sunmaktadir.
Ustelik bir telefon yada e-mail ile adresinize teslim.
AKDENIZ GOZ MERKEZI www.akdenizgoz.com
Fevzipasa cad. No:73 Fatih / Istanbul 0 212 635 74 74
Bausch
26 matches
Mail list logo
