Package: dpkg-dev
Followup-For: Bug #689062
Hello.
I took the absence of answer to my messages here and the ITP as an
agreement that an external tool, if somewhat redundant, is preferable
to a change in the dpkg-gencontrol public interface, where any change
has wide repercussions.
So here is
Hi everyone,
On Sunday 14 October 2012 20:06:19 Guillem Jover wrote:
On Sun, 2012-10-14 at 23:12:14 +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
I'd like to propose the following solution:
Let's introduce a new class of standard substitution variables, one
for every binary package, expanding to source (=
* Guillem Jover guil...@debian.org, 2012-09-28, 22:55:
I'm going to be closing this request if there's no additional feedback
proposing a workable and elegant solution to this.
I'd like to propose the following solution:
Let's introduce a new class of standard substitution variables, one for
Hi!
On Sun, 2012-10-14 at 23:12:14 +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
* Guillem Jover guil...@debian.org, 2012-09-28, 22:55:
I'm going to be closing this request if there's no additional
feedback proposing a workable and elegant solution to this.
I'd like to propose the following solution:
Let's
On 28/09/12 23:46, Guillem Jover wrote:
On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 22:50:10 +0100, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
On 28/09/12 21:55, Guillem Jover wrote:
As such, I'm going to be closing this request if there's no additional
feedback proposing a workable and elegant solution to this.
Thanks for
Nicholas Bamber wrote:
Techincally the shell script
fragments incorporated into Debian maintance scripts by debhelper may
fall into this category
For code that is licensed like so?
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted under any
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 29/09/12 16:36, Joey Hess wrote:
Nicholas Bamber wrote:
Techincally the shell script fragments incorporated into Debian
maintance scripts by debhelper may fall into this category
For code that is licensed like so?
Redistribution and use
Hi,
Nicholas Bamber wrote:
Sorry yes I did not mean to imply that there was a copyright issue
with the inclusion of debhelper fragments in maintenance scripts, just
an example of techincally it might happen. The policy explicitly
mentions incorporating source code.
Based on
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.16.8
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
*** Please consider answering these questions, where appropriate ***
* What led up to the situation?
Debian Policy version 3.9.4 adds support for the Built-Using field. This field
can be
different on each build run and so
Processing control commands:
severity -1 wishlist
Bug #689062 [dpkg-dev] dpkg-dev: Need to add support for Built-Using to
dpkg-shlibdeps or new similar tool
Severity set to 'wishlist' from 'normal'
--
689062: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=689062
Debian Bug Tracking System
Control: severity -1 wishlist
Hi!
On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 20:58:13 +0100, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.16.8
Severity: normal
Debian Policy version 3.9.4 adds support for the Built-Using field.
This field can be different on each build run and so is analagous to
the
On 28/09/12 21:55, Guillem Jover wrote:
Control: severity -1 wishlist
Hi!
On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 20:58:13 +0100, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.16.8
Severity: normal
Debian Policy version 3.9.4 adds support for the Built-Using field.
This field can be different on
On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 22:50:10 +0100, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
On 28/09/12 21:55, Guillem Jover wrote:
As such, I'm going to be closing this request if there's no additional
feedback proposing a workable and elegant solution to this.
Thanks for responing. I think I can come up with a proposed
13 matches
Mail list logo
