On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 at 14:58:24 -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > I don't think this is a policy violation: you're mixing up the nodoc
> > build profile with the nodoc build option.
>
> Specifically, this is what I used in my
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 at 20:30:20 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 02:16:48PM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> > I don't think there is any benefit to anyone from empty -doc packages.
>
> What about packages that depend on -doc packages ?
> They might become uninstallable.
I can
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 at 14:16:48 -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
>> This is technically a violation of Debian Policy 4.9.1 which has this wording
>> "This option does not change the set of binary packages generated by
>> the
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 at 14:16:48 -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> Source: debian-policy
> Version: 4.1.1.1
>
> I recently introduced support for nodoc for libgdamm5.0 in its
> packaging branch (not uploaded to unstable yet) [1]. Since there is
> only one arch-indep package, the -doc package, there
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 02:16:48PM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> Source: debian-policy
> Version: 4.1.1.1
>
> I recently introduced support for nodoc for libgdamm5.0 in its
> packaging branch (not uploaded to unstable yet) [1]. Since there is
> only one arch-indep package, the -doc package, there
Source: debian-policy
Version: 4.1.1.1
I recently introduced support for nodoc for libgdamm5.0 in its
packaging branch (not uploaded to unstable yet) [1]. Since there is
only one arch-indep package, the -doc package, there are no packages
built when an arch-indep build is attempted with the
6 matches
Mail list logo