Re: List of packages which should probably be Architecture: all

To: Raphael Geissert <atomo64+debian@gmail.com>
Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-qa@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: List of packages which should probably be Architecture: all
From: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 21:12:46 +0100
Message-id: <[🔎] 20080102201246.GA6525@roeckx.be>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] flgqde$uqm$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <[🔎] flgo05$l3r$1@ger.gmane.org> <[🔎] flgqde$uqm$1@ger.gmane.org>

On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 01:58:24PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> 
> Just to clarify to everybody, the list was screwed up by dd-list (my bad,
> didn't see the '-b' option part). Thanks to Adeodato for pointing that out.
> So, here's the list of binary packages (attachment is dd-list -u again).

This list looks alot better, but still seems to contains atleast
1 that have a Depends field:

> Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <he@debian.org>
>    libgnomecanvas2-0 (U)


Kurt

Reply to:

References:
- List of packages which should probably be Architecture: all
  - From: Raphael Geissert <atomo64+debian@gmail.com>
- Re: List of packages which should probably be Architecture: all
  - From: Raphael Geissert <atomo64+debian@gmail.com>

Prev by Date: Re: List of packages which should probably be Architecture: all
Next by Date: Re: List of packages which should probably be Architecture: all
Previous by thread: Re: List of packages which should probably be Architecture: all
Next by thread: Re: List of packages which should probably be Architecture: all
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread