Re: How important is "Architecture: any" (Was: Downloads things, ...)
- To: Custom Debian Distributions <email@example.com>
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: How important is "Architecture: any" (Was: Downloads things, ...)
- From: Andreas Tille <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 15:00:22 +0100 (CET)
- Message-id: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0803031450320.20430@wr-linux02>
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <20080226175431.GA10289@roeckx.be> <email@example.com> <alpine.DEB.1.00.0803031355550.20430@wr-linux02> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Holger Levsen wrote:
It's not the only one that package has... (and we have our lenny(-test) for
Well, "we have our" sounds that I do not belong to this "we" because
I don't know anything serious about this lenny-test. :)
Alternativly you could also fix that RC bug now
This would be my prefered strategy.
and open a new, important, one
about the other architectures being slightly wrong.
Well, in how far it is _important_? What is actually broken?
I also would only open such a bug if there is a _known_ case of a
certain package that is recommended but not existant for this
architecture. As long as I do not have this information the
only problem I see is some kind of:
cdd-dev: might produce recommends that are not available on certain archs
severity : minor
As long as debian-edu is the static source file it will be
according to the request of the reporter of the bug in question
there is nothing wrong in debian-edu except you find such a
case which might potentionally happen.
PS: Perhaps we should meet in IRC with Petter and Jose (and whoever
might like to join to find a reasonable agreement for this
topic. I would suggest today evening 21:00 UTC in #debian-edu.