Lucas C. Villa Real wrote:
> On 7/24/06, Hisham Muhammad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 7/24/06, Lucas C. Villa Real <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > The questions become a little strange with this modification:
>> > CheckDependencies: Compile Glibc 2.4 recipe or skip this dependency?
>> > [Y]es/[
On 7/24/06, Hisham Muhammad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/24/06, Lucas C. Villa Real <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The questions become a little strange with this modification:
> CheckDependencies: Compile Glibc 2.4 recipe or skip this dependency?
> [Y]es/[N]o/[NA]No to All/[YA]Yes to All
You m
On 7/24/06, Lucas C. Villa Real <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The questions become a little strange with this modification:
CheckDependencies: Compile Glibc 2.4 recipe or skip this dependency?
[Y]es/[N]o/[NA]No to All/[YA]Yes to All
You mean the grammar? I didn't see a problem, but maybe
"Compile
"sk_Option "%s %s %s %s or skip this dependency"
I think that the problem is the "or"
This isn't enough?
"sk_Option "%s %s %s %s"
On 7/24/06, Jonatan Liljedahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
André Detsch wrote:
> On 7/24/06, Lucas C. Villa Real <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> How do we handle blackl
André Detsch wrote:
> On 7/24/06, Lucas C. Villa Real <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> How do we handle blacklists here? It's now asking for Glibc, even
>> though it's blacklisted at Dependencies.blacklist.
>
> Oh, blacklist was'nt integrated yet. Btw, seems to be easy. I'll do it
> today.
>
>
>> T
On 7/24/06, Lucas C. Villa Real <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How do we handle blacklists here? It's now asking for Glibc, even
though it's blacklisted at Dependencies.blacklist.
Oh, blacklist was'nt integrated yet. Btw, seems to be easy. I'll do it today.
The questions become a little strange
On 7/23/06, André Detsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
CVSROOT:/sources/goboscripts
Module name:tools
Changes by: André Detsch06/07/23 03:36:38
Modified files:
Scripts/bin: CheckDependencies
Log message:
Better question messages.
Placed 'main' inside
On 7/24/06, André Detsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/24/06, Lucas C. Villa Real <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there any special reason to replace `uname -m` by a hardcoded i686
> entry? Does the AMD64 return something different? While the ISO is
> still focused on i686, I think it's nice to
Hi there all,
I was wondering if the cvs idea extends to arch, bazaar, and or darcs
repositories. (I saw that svn is already covered).
And if so, I assume something like packagename-
should be used, so people do not install them if they are missing the
repository software.
Why you ask do you w
On 7/24/06, Lucas C. Villa Real <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is there any special reason to replace `uname -m` by a hardcoded i686
entry? Does the AMD64 return something different? While the ISO is
still focused on i686, I think it's nice to develop taking care of
these little "portability" details
10 matches
Mail list logo
