|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 21:51:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Geoffrey Thomas <geofft@MIT.EDU> To: William Cattey <wdc@mit.edu> cc: Evan Broder <broder@mit.edu>, release-team@mit.edu, debathena@mit.edu In-Reply-To: <2188F644-9FEF-4950-8179-5817527D862A@mit.edu> Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0903202147340.15541@corndog.mit.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.00 On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, William Cattey wrote: > Dang. > > Didn't I see that aptitude won't install something if it previously > discovered it was un-installable? > This would mean that, if we can't promote mit-scheme to a dependency, the > failure to install that today's cluster systems experience would be hard to > remedy. Right. So, we'd have to wait for mit-scheme to be uploaded, but it probably makes sense to wait until the next business or school day anyway, at which point mit-scheme will hopefully be ready. The other option would be to declare debathena-thirdparty only useful on i386 machines, but so far I don't think we have a good reason to do that. Anyway, other than waiting for mit-scheme, are we ready to make debathena-cluster depend on debathena-thirdparty? -- Geoffrey Thomas geofft@mit.edu
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |