On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:59:11AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
>As a side note the debian-cd package needs to also consider Built-Using
>when creating source images.
Yup, we'll need to consider that. I'm looking forwards to having all
the stuff we need properly dealt with, however it's do
Philipp Kern writes:
> On 2011-03-23, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Also does the testing transition consider the Built-Using? If I specify
>> 'Built-Using: gcc-4.5 (= 4.5.2-5)' will the package be blocked from
>> entering testing until gcc-4.5 (= 4.5.2-5) has entered and block gcc-4.5
>> (= 4.
Mark Hymers writes:
> On Tue, 22, Mar, 2011 at 01:57:42PM +, Hector Oron spoke thus..
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> 2011/3/22 Mark Hymers :
>>
>> > The current design is the Binary packages can contain an additional
>> > control field: Built-Using.
>>
>> First of all, thanks very much for taking care
Mark Hymers writes:
> On Mon, 14, Mar, 2011 at 02:04:30PM +, Hector Oron spoke thus..
>> Hi,
>>
>> 2009/11/2 Mark Hymers :
>> > On Mon, 02, Nov, 2009 at 12:43:42PM +, Philipp Kern spoke thus..
>> >> Of course it is a sane approach but very special care needs to be taken
>> >> when
>> >>
On Tue, 22, Mar, 2011 at 01:51:00PM +0100, Matthias Klose spoke thus..
> that would be too strict for e.g. gcj-4.5
>
> Built-Using: gcc-4.5 (>= 4.5.2-1~), gcc-4.5 (<< 4.5.3)
>
> would be correct, however this already can be expressed in the build
> dependencies, so I assume packages like gcj-4.x,
On Tue, 22, Mar, 2011 at 01:57:42PM +, Hector Oron spoke thus..
> Hi Mark,
>
> 2011/3/22 Mark Hymers :
>
> > The current design is the Binary packages can contain an additional
> > control field: Built-Using.
>
> First of all, thanks very much for taking care of it, that probably
> will get
>> The current design is the Binary packages can contain an additional
>> control field: Built-Using.
> First of all, thanks very much for taking care of it, that probably
> will get us going.
> I just would like to point out that current design solves half of
> the problem (being GPL compliant
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 14:33:09 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 22.03.2011 14:20, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > On 2011-03-22, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >>> The current design is the Binary packages can contain an additional
> > ^^
> >>> control field: Built-Using.
> >
On 22.03.2011 14:20, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 2011-03-22, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>> The current design is the Binary packages can contain an additional
> ^^
>>> control field: Built-Using.
> [...]
>> that would be too strict for e.g. gcj-4.5
>> Built-Using: gcc-4.5
On Mon, 14, Mar, 2011 at 02:04:30PM +, Hector Oron spoke thus..
> Hi,
>
> 2009/11/2 Mark Hymers :
> > On Mon, 02, Nov, 2009 at 12:43:42PM +, Philipp Kern spoke thus..
> >> Of course it is a sane approach but very special care needs to be taken
> >> when
> >> releasing to ensure GPL compli
On 22.03.2011 12:54, Mark Hymers wrote:
> On Mon, 14, Mar, 2011 at 02:04:30PM +, Hector Oron spoke thus..
>> Hi,
>>
>> 2009/11/2 Mark Hymers :
>>> On Mon, 02, Nov, 2009 at 12:43:42PM +, Philipp Kern spoke thus..
Of course it is a sane approach but very special care needs to be taken
>
Hi Mark,
2011/3/22 Mark Hymers :
> The current design is the Binary packages can contain an additional
> control field: Built-Using.
First of all, thanks very much for taking care of it, that probably
will get us going.
I just would like to point out that current design solves half of
the pr
On 2011-03-22, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> The current design is the Binary packages can contain an additional
^^
>> control field: Built-Using.
[...]
> that would be too strict for e.g. gcj-4.5
> Built-Using: gcc-4.5 (>= 4.5.2-1~), gcc-4.5 (<< 4.5.3)
> would be corre
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 02:04:30PM +, Hector Oron wrote:
> the package is not optimal, but once we got multiarch support, it should
> be renamed to `binutils-armel' (or similar name) and use linux and eglibc
> libraries and headers provided by multiarch.
Please note that building such a packag
Hi,
2009/11/2 Mark Hymers :
> On Mon, 02, Nov, 2009 at 12:43:42PM +, Philipp Kern spoke thus..
>> Of course it is a sane approach but very special care needs to be taken when
>> releasing to ensure GPL compliance. So what we should get is support in the
>> toolchain to declare against what so
15 matches
Mail list logo
