[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#244334: marked as done (doesn't support images on different arches with the same name)

Your message dated Thu, 28 Jun 2007 21:22:30 -0300
with message-id <876457wqwp.fsf@lab.ossystems.com.br>
and subject line Isn't need at the moment and nobody complained about it anymore
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

--- Begin Message ---
Package: kernel-wedge
Version: 1.9
Severity: wishlist

kernel-wedge lacks a feature I'd expect to see in any industrial
strength kernel wedger.  It does not support building an image with
the same name on multiple architectures.  There is a machine which
can run in either mips or mipsel, and the kernel configuration is
exactly the same except for the endianess.  Unfortunately,
kernel-wedge creates two separate control stanzas, which dpkg doesn't

(If this is too hard to implement, I guess I can split mips and mipsel
again, but it does make some sense to have them in one source
Martin Michlmayr

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---

The reporter opted to split the packages due other reasons and do not
need this feature, besides that, he was the only who complained about

I'm closing this bug but if you disagree with it, please reopen it
justifying why you're doing it.

Thanks in advance,

        O T A V I O    S A L V A D O R
 E-mail: otavio@debian.org      UIN: 5906116
 GNU/Linux User: 239058     GPG ID: 49A5F855
 Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br
"Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives
 you the whole house."

--- End Message ---

Reply to: