Andreas Tille andr...@an3as.eu writes:
Currently every single maintainer is forced to invent a convincing
text to educate upstream. The position of a single maintainer could be
drastically strengthened if there would be a widely accepted document
(not only in the Debian world) which gives a
On Tuesday 29 September 2009, Frank Küster wrote:
David Goodenough david.goodeno...@btconnect.com wrote:
I am a newcommer to this particular bit of policy, but it occurs to me
that the answer is to add links to the original commands to conform to
Debian standards while leaving the upstream
On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 13:36 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
I know that there has already been much of talk about this, but I am am
getting
more and more uncomfortable removing .pl or .sh extensions from programs when
upstream does not.
At least in cases where the programs/scripts could be
Le mardi 29 septembre 2009 à 13:21 +0800, Paul Wise a écrit :
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Reinhard Tartler siret...@debian.org wrote:
Would you consider this a blocker to inclusion into Debian? Upstream may
either release very slowly or may just not care about Debian, which
would
On Tue, Sep 29 2009, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
You can also try to make the world look like you want not adapt your
eyes to see the world as is, no?
We try to fix the world, yes. Systems integrations, and
consistent policies, is what make Debian a superior OS.
Please note that
Peter Eisentraut pet...@debian.org writes:
At least in cases where the programs/scripts could be considered part of
a programming interface, this requirement is approximately equivalent to
requiring the exported symbols of libraries to conform to some spelling
scheme. While Debian has
On Tuesday 29 September 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
Peter Eisentraut pet...@debian.org writes:
At least in cases where the programs/scripts could be considered part of
a programming interface, this requirement is approximately equivalent to
requiring the exported symbols of libraries to
David Goodenough david.goodeno...@btconnect.com wrote:
I am a newcommer to this particular bit of policy, but it occurs to me that
the answer is to add links to the original commands to conform to
Debian standards while leaving the upstream commands intact.
That would horribly clutter the
Reinhard Tartler siret...@debian.org writes:
Paul Wise p...@debian.org writes:
So get upstream to change their filenames before packaging them for
Debian.
Would you consider this a blocker to inclusion into Debian? Upstream
may either release very slowly or may just not care about Debian,
9 matches
Mail list logo
