Hello,
On Mon, Dec 25 2017, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Seconded the above change and with or without the wording change
> discussed in the other part of this thread.
Thank you for your review.
Here is the current diff awaiting a final second:
diff --git a/policy/ch-relationships.rst b/policy/ch-rel
Sean Whitton writes:
> diff --git a/policy/ch-relationships.rst b/policy/ch-relationships.rst
> index 3a73f7b..499bed9 100644
> --- a/policy/ch-relationships.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-relationships.rst
> @@ -598,17 +598,26 @@ earlier for binary packages) in order to invoke the
> targets in
> Additi
Sean Whitton writes:
> On Mon, Aug 28 2017, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>> Sean Whitton writes:
>>> +This field should not be used for purposes other than satisfying
>>> +license requirements to provide full source code.
>> The DFSG requires source code to be provided too...
> Can you suggest a bet
Hello Ansgar,
On Mon, Aug 28 2017, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Sean Whitton writes:
>> +This field should not be used for purposes other than satisfying
>> +license requirements to provide full source code.
>
> The DFSG requires source code to be provided too...
Can you suggest a better word than
Sean Whitton writes:
> +This field should not be used for purposes other than satisfying
> +license requirements to provide full source code.
The DFSG requires source code to be provided too...
Ansgar
control: tag -1 +patch
Hello,
On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 05:30:12PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> The attached patch is a third attempt, which underlines that the Built-Using
> field is particularly useful when a given package, contributing contents
> included in another package, can not be replace
Le Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 05:30:12PM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
>
> The attached patch is a third attempt, which underlines that the Built-Using
> field is particularly useful when a given package, contributing contents
> included in another package, can not be replaced by a later version. It
Thanks everybody for your contributions to clarify the uses case of the
Built-Using field.
The attached patch is a third attempt, which underlines that the Built-Using
field is particularly useful when a given package, contributing contents
included in another package, can not be replaced by a lat
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
tag 688251 - patch
usertags 688251 discussion
thanks
Le Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 09:08:55AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>
> The basic problem that we're trying to solve is that nearly every package
> in Debian incorporates code from gcc and/or libc into the re
Paul Wise writes:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
>> I paste below the current wording in the Policy 3.9.4. If you have an
>> improvement to propose, that would be much appreciated !
> The wording doesn't appear confusing to me so I'm not the best person
> to propose w
On 09/23/2013 10:56, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 5:33 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
>> do you think that the attached patch would solve the problem ?
>
> There are more reasons for using Built-Using than licenses, for example:
>
> Rebuilding against updated versions of static libraries
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I paste below the current wording in the Policy 3.9.4. If you have an
> improvement to propose, that would be much appreciated !
The wording doesn't appear confusing to me so I'm not the best person
to propose wording changes.
> The prob
Le Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 10:56:28AM +0200, Paul Wise a écrit :
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 5:33 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
>
> > do you think that the attached patch would solve the problem ?
>
> There are more reasons for using Built-Using than licenses, for example:
>
> Rebuilding against updated
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 5:33 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
> do you think that the attached patch would solve the problem ?
There are more reasons for using Built-Using than licenses, for example:
Rebuilding against updated versions of static libraries.
Rebuilding the debian-installer-*-netboot-* pa
tag 688251 patch
thanks
Le Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 08:57:34AM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
>
> I would like to make the short-term clarification for the next revision of the
> Policy. In its simplest form, it could be the addition of something like
> "when
> the combination of licenses requires
Dear all,
there has been discussions about the Built-Using field and the way
it is currently documented in the Policy. I think that there are
a short and a long term issue.
- In the short term, we can correct the wording to match the FTP
team's current practice, and reduce the confusion in
16 matches
Mail list logo
