Hello,
On Sat 06 Apr 2024 at 12:15pm +08, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hi Russ,
>
> We have two seconded solutions, so you and I should perhaps break the
> tie. I prefer the Bill's 'Autobuild: no' solution as the more
> conservative change: we only have data about packages that are currently
>
Hi Russ,
We have two seconded solutions, so you and I should perhaps break the
tie. I prefer the Bill's 'Autobuild: no' solution as the more
conservative change: we only have data about packages that are currently
autobuilt, not those that aren't, so we might be making those buggy if
we just ban
Hello,
On Fri 05 Apr 2024 at 11:30am +02, Christian Kastner wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> On 2024-03-29 20:30, Christian Kastner wrote:
>> Policy 5.6.30 lists the Testsuite field, but it doesn't list the
>> Testsuite-Triggers field that seems to be part of Sources files and is
>> generated by
> "Aurelien" == Aurelien Jarno writes:
Aurelien> If we go that route, here is a proposed alternative patch:
Aurelien> --- a/policy/ch-source.rst
Aurelien> +++ b/policy/ch-source.rst
Aurelien> @@ -338,7 +338,8 @@
Aurelien> For example, the build target should pass
On 2024-04-04 22:38, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 01:22:19PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I'm not sure what I think about that. We have a general escape hatch
> > already for non-free packages in Policy 2.2.3 that says they may not fully
> > comply with Policy, which may be
On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 10:58:37PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Thanks Philipp. Following that result, please find a patch proposal:
>
> --- a/policy/ch-source.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-source.rst
> @@ -338,9 +338,9 @@
> For example, the build target should pass ``--disable-silent-rules``
> to
Hi again,
On 2024-03-29 20:30, Christian Kastner wrote:
> Policy 5.6.30 lists the Testsuite field, but it doesn't list the
> Testsuite-Triggers field that seems to be part of Sources files and is
> generated by dpkg-source >= 1.18.8.
>
> This field is quite useful, as given my package src:foo, I
7 matches
Mail list logo
