| 1 |
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:38:07 -0800 |
| 2 |
Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 02:17 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Oh. Yeah. Because people with an attitude like yours think that the |
| 5 |
> > correct way to fix a repoman message is to start nuking arch |
| 6 |
> > keywords, ignoring what it does to the rest of the tree. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> ...for the architecture in question which is proving incapable of |
| 9 |
> keeping up with the state of the tree as it is... |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Sorry, you fail. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Uh... So where do the original problems come from? Are you saying that |
| 14 |
packages mysteriously start breaking on their own because no-one's |
| 15 |
maintaining them? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
-- |
| 18 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives