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
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 03:01:51PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 09:08:55AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
The question is how to make it clear that's not the intent, which
requires figuring out how to separate the other use cases from the gcc
and glibc case.
I
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
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 09:08:55AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
The question is how to make it clear that's not the intent, which
requires figuring out how to separate the other use cases from the gcc
and glibc case.
I guess the general answer you're looking for depends on the use cases
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-*
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 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
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.
Paul Wise p...@debian.org 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
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 to
11 matches
Mail list logo
