On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 17:10 +0100, Burton, Ross wrote:
> Both of these examples are in mainstream packages where the package
> maintainers in the distro are also upstream developers, and yet these
> kludges exist (note that our gdk-pixbuf is currently broken in this
> respect).
If someone figures
On 2 May 2013 19:07, Mark Hatle wrote:
> Just because we're using RPM doesn't mean we have to follow Fedora. There
> are a lot of things that Fedora does wrong (and right) IMHO. Same with
> Debian and others. We need to make sure we do appropriate choices based on
> the users of OE-Core. These
On 5/2/13 12:24 PM, Enrico Scholz wrote:
"Burton, Ross" writes:
rpm allows "executables" (but not libraries) to conflict and will
prefer the 64-bit version,
Sure? At least rpm-4 (Fedora, RHEL) does not allow files to conflict.
Fedora solves the multilib problem by splitting the distribution
"Burton, Ross" writes:
> rpm allows "executables" (but not libraries) to conflict and will
> prefer the 64-bit version,
Sure? At least rpm-4 (Fedora, RHEL) does not allow files to conflict.
Fedora solves the multilib problem by splitting the distribution into
main packages (unilib only; contain
On 5/2/13 11:10 AM, Burton, Ross wrote:
Hi all,
There were several issues being discussed here under the topic of
libexecdir, some simple and some less so. I'll ramble for a bit to
try and get a proper conclusion debated.
The situation where you have a 32-bit dropbear but a 64-bit openssh is
r
Hi all,
There were several issues being discussed here under the topic of
libexecdir, some simple and some less so. I'll ramble for a bit to
try and get a proper conclusion debated.
The situation where you have a 32-bit dropbear but a 64-bit openssh is
rather pathological and I'd like to know if
