Re: GNOME 2.8 on ia64 completely hosed?
- To: Debian GNOME <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: GNOME 2.8 on ia64 completely hosed?
- From: Adam C Powell IV <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2004 14:03:13 -0500
- Message-id: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <20041201021751.GA20875@pegasos>
- References: <email@example.com> <20041130013928.GA1485@chastell.shot.pl> <20041130024938.GA28734@pegasos> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20041201021751.GA20875@pegasos>
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 21:17, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 01:03:59PM -0700, Al Stone wrote:
> > Hmmm. 'apt-get upgrade' this morning seems to have fixed it
> > all -- so it would seem that the autobuilders got caught up.
> > It would sure be nice to fix the underlying problem, though --
> > perhaps, as I think someone already suggested, by having a gate
> > in the process so that the archives are not updated until all
> > of the binary packages from a single source package have rebuilt.
> No, that is the wrong fix, the right fix is simply to keep all the arch:all
> packages that have assorted arch:any packages in the archive.
Uh, that would be called "testing".
Or are you suggesting that we implement a new fourth distribution
between testing and unstable, which requires that all arches are built,
but does not require the 2-10 day testing period? Sounds kinda
over-the-top to me.
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6
Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe!