The use case is when I'm thinking about if something is on an image, the
question is about a particular binary. The broader question I'm usually
trying to answer is "can I upload this now" which translates to "are any of
the binaries from this source seeded".
Using source packages assume the d
What's the use case for the requested behavior?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of MOTU,
which is subscribed to ubuntu-dev-tools in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1029155
Title:
[seeded-in-ubuntu] should be clearer that it takes a source package
To mana
I disagree with this solution. We don't put sources in seeds. We put
binaries.
I ought to be able to feed it a binary package and it should tell me if
any binaries from the source that builds that binary are seeded. It's
not that hard to to and it saves the developer from having to either
retry
$ seeded-in-ubuntu python-rpy
seeded-in-ubuntu: Error: The source package 'python-rpy' does not exist in the
Ubuntu primary archive in quantal, quantal-security, quantal-updates or
quantal-proposed
** Changed in: ubuntu-dev-tools (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided => Low
** Changed in: ubuntu-de
** Branch linked: lp:ubuntu-dev-tools
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of MOTU,
which is subscribed to ubuntu-dev-tools in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1029155
Title:
[seeded-in-ubuntu] should be clearer that it takes a source package
To manage notific
Public bug reported:
$ seeded-in-ubuntu python-rpyx -b
python-rpyx is not seeded.
python-rpyx does not exist and seeded-in-ubuntu should have told me
that.
** Affects: ubuntu-dev-tools (Ubuntu)
Importance: Low
Status: New
** Changed in: ubuntu-dev-tools (Ubuntu)
Importance: Und
On Thursday, July 26, 2012 02:40:29 PM you wrote:
> Why not allowing binary package checks?
Agreed.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of MOTU,
which is subscribed to ubuntu-dev-tools in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1029155
Title:
[seeded-in-ubuntu] shou
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 02:40:29PM -, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> Why not allowing binary package checks?
It does, with -b. It makes sense to operate primarily on source packges
though, since that is what you upload.
I'm undecided as to whether falling back to binaries in case the
supplied packag
Why not allowing binary package checks?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of MOTU,
which is subscribed to ubuntu-dev-tools in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1029155
Title:
[seeded-in-ubuntu] should be clearer that it takes a source package
To manage notif
It should say "source package"
** Summary changed:
- [seeded-in-ubuntu] not working on precise
+ [seeded-in-ubuntu] should be clearer that it takes a source package
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of MOTU,
which is subscribed to ubuntu-dev-tools in Ubuntu.
https:/
10 matches
Mail list logo
