On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 08:30:52PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> While I fully support properly marking obsolete packages by putting
> them in the (unfortunately misnamed :) oldlibs section (well excluding
> library-like depended on packages that get dropped as a mater of course).
> I wanted to
Hi!
On Wed, 2024-04-17 at 04:24:16 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> Package: developers-reference
> Version: 13.5
> Severity: normal
> Now that the deborphan package has been removed from unstable,
> the section "Make transition packages deborphan compliant" in
> "Best Packaging Practices" is out
Hi Vincent,
On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 04:24:16AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> Now that the deborphan package has been removed from unstable,
> the section "Make transition packages deborphan compliant" in
> "Best Packaging Practices" is out of date and should be updated.
>
> See
Package: developers-reference
Version: 13.5
Severity: normal
Now that the deborphan package has been removed from unstable,
the section "Make transition packages deborphan compliant" in
"Best Packaging Practices" is out of date and should be updated.
See
4 matches
Mail list logo