On Sat, Jul 06, 2019 at 08:58:26PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Here is an updated patch incorporating Sean's wording changes as well as
> other changes discussed elsewhere on the thread. This reverts most of my
> unrelated informative changes for clarity (they can be discussed or made
>
Hello,
On Sat 06 Jul 2019 at 08:58PM -07, Russ Allbery wrote:
> diff --git a/policy/ch-source.rst b/policy/ch-source.rst
> index ee9270d..93beb4a 100644
> --- a/policy/ch-source.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-source.rst
> @@ -259,13 +259,33 @@ files, sockets or setuid or setgid files.. [#]_
> Main
My second still applies to the following diff; I agree this is
consistent with the discussion so far.
diff --git a/policy/ch-source.rst b/policy/ch-source.rst
index ee9270d..93beb4a 100644
--- a/policy/ch-source.rst
+++ b/policy/ch-source.rst
@@ -259,13 +259,33 @@ files, sockets or setuid or
Here is an updated patch incorporating Sean's wording changes as well as
other changes discussed elsewhere on the thread. This reverts most of my
unrelated informative changes for clarity (they can be discussed or made
separately) and drops the sample dh makefile in favor of just referencing
the
On Vi, 21 iun 19, 13:09:29, Sean Whitton wrote:
>
> There are sometimes good reasons to use a different approach. For
> example, the standard tools for packaging software written in some
> languages may use another tool; some rarer packaging patterns, such
> as multiple builds of
I believe that both Russ's text and Sean's revised text capture the
project level discussions.
I also believe that given those discussions the issues are well
understood enough for us to move forward relatively quickly if new
issues are not raised here. I believe that Russ has adequately
Hello,
On Thu 20 Jun 2019 at 08:51am -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> That said, this is way too large of a problem to solve in this bug. I
> think we need to stay focused on one section of policy here with a few
> tactical fixes so that the text still reads cleanly and not confusingly
> (which is
Hello,
On Fri 21 Jun 2019 at 01:09PM +01, Sean Whitton wrote:
> packaging helper might want to use their new tool. The
> recommendation to use ``dh`` does not always apply, and use of
> ``dh`` is therefore not required.
>
> - saying that use of ``dh`` is "not required" is strictly
Hello Russ, Sam,
On Thu 20 Jun 2019 at 09:01AM -07, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Sean Whitton writes:
>
>> A tiny thing is that you seem to have switched "" for "",
>> which seems wrong.
>
> I'll put this back to args... since it just muddles the discussion, and we
> can talk about that separately
Sean Whitton writes:
>> --- a/policy/ch-source.rst
>> +++ b/policy/ch-source.rst
>> @@ -259,18 +259,49 @@ files, sockets or setuid or setgid files.. [#]_
>> Main building script: ``debian/rules``
>> --
>>
>> -This file must be an executable makefile, and
Bill Allombert writes:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 06:24:45PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> The following targets are required and must be implemented by
>> ``debian/rules``: ``clean``, ``binary``, ``binary-arch``,
>> -``binary-indep``, ``build``, ``build-arch`` and ``build-indep``. These
>>
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 06:24:45PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The following targets are required and must be implemented by
> ``debian/rules``: ``clean``, ``binary``, ``binary-arch``,
> -``binary-indep``, ``build``, ``build-arch`` and ``build-indep``. These
> -are the targets called by
> "Sean" == Sean Whitton writes:
Sean> Let me try to express what I think the problem is. What the
Sean> first sentence says, given the equivalence of RECOMMENDED and
Sean> SHOULD noted above, is "you should use dh unless there is a
Sean> reason not to use dh".
Sean>
Hello Russ,
On Tue 18 Jun 2019 at 06:24PM -07, Russ Allbery wrote:
> For those reading this, note that "recommended" is a documented keyword in
> Policy, equivalent to "should." However, it is intentionally weakened
> here with the "in the absence of a reason to use a different approach"
>
Sam Hartman writes:
> I just published a consensus call on a discussion we had to canvas the
> project on the use of Debhelper's dh sequencer.
> https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/tslmuif7pwy@suchdamage.org
> I'd like to ask the policy editors to facilitate using the normal
> process to
package: debian-policy
Dear policy team:
I just published a consensus call on a discussion we had to canvas the
project on the use of Debhelper's dh sequencer.
https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/tslmuif7pwy@suchdamage.org
I'd like to ask the policy editors to facilitate using the normal
16 matches
Mail list logo
