Bug#819660: explicitly allow building automatic debug symbols packages not listed in control

On Mon, 2017-01-02 at 09:53:17 +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 11:15:36PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > I massaged the wording a bit. Here's what I committed for the next > > release: > > + Each binary package built from this source package has a > > +

Bug#819660: explicitly allow building automatic debug symbols packages not listed in control

On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 11:15:36PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > I massaged the wording a bit. Here's what I committed for the next > release: > + Each binary package built from this source package has a > + corresponding paragraph, except for any automatically-generated > +

Bug#819660: explicitly allow building automatic debug symbols packages not listed in control

Raphael Hertzog writes: > On Sat, 31 Dec 2016, Russ Allbery wrote: >> >>The first paragraph of the control file contains information about the >> >>source package in general. The subsequent sets each describe a binary >> >>package that the source tree builds. All the binary

Bug#819660: explicitly allow building automatic debug symbols packages not listed in control

On Sat, 31 Dec 2016, Russ Allbery wrote: > >>[…] > >> > >>The first paragraph of the control file contains information about the > >>source package in general. The subsequent sets each describe a binary > >>package that the source tree builds. All the binary packages have a > >>corresponding

Bug#819660: explicitly allow building automatic debug symbols packages not listed in control

Tanguy Ortolo writes: > The Policy implicitly indicates a source package should only build > binary packages listed in debian/control. At least, this is how > ftpmaster interprets §5.2, 5.4 and 5.6.19, when you look at the Reject > FAQ

Bug#819660: explicitly allow building automatic debug symbols packages not listed in control

Tanguy Ortolo, 2016-04-01 11:23+0200: My new package gspell has just been rejected That was an explicit April fool, shame on me for not noticing it! concluding that they are okay with automatic debug packages may have been a bit premature. I will check what is going on here and update this

Bug#819660: explicitly allow building automatic debug symbols packages not listed in control

Tanguy Ortolo, 2016-04-01 10:38+0200: I have just checked on #debian-ftp, and joerg confirmed that they are okay with automatic debug packages. That question was in fact already implicitly answered, since they did the work to accept these packages in the archive! My new package gspell has

Bug#819660: explicitly allow building automatic debug symbols packages not listed in control

Bill Allombert, 2016-03-31 18:42+0200: Are the FTP masters happy with that ? I have just checked on #debian-ftp, and joerg confirmed that they are okay with automatic debug packages. That question was in fact already implicitly answered, since they did the work to accept these packages in

Bug#819660: explicitly allow building automatic debug symbols packages not listed in control

Hello, and thanks for the super fast reply. Bill Allombert, 2016-03-31 18:42+0200: The Policy implicitly indicates a source package should only build binary packages listed in debian/control. At least, this is how ftpmaster interprets §5.2, 5.4 and 5.6.19, when you look at the Reject FAQ

Bug#819660: explicitly allow building automatic debug symbols packages not listed in control

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 06:28:25PM +0200, Tanguy Ortolo wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Severity: wishlist > > Hello, > > > The Policy implicitly indicates a source package should only build > binary packages listed in debian/control. At least, this is how > ftpmaster interprets §5.2, 5.4 and

Bug#819660: explicitly allow building automatic debug symbols packages not listed in control

Package: debian-policy Severity: wishlist -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hello, The Policy implicitly indicates a source package should only build binary packages listed in debian/control. At least, this is how ftpmaster interprets §5.2, 5.4 and 5.6.19, when you look at the