kage
needs a copy of that license.
> Do you think it's possible to apply some sort of automated solution to
> the problem? I could think of a "built-using" support in debhelper that
> will not only add the built-using header but also copy the (complete)
> copyright file from t
Hi,
On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 19:42:01 -0800
Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> wrote:
> I don't think you need to change anything about Built-Using. That
> seems like exactly the sort of reason anticipated by DFSG
> compliance. The clarification in Policy is because the previous
>
Paul Wise <p...@debian.org> writes:
> Personally, I feel this change to policy is a mistake.
Alternative proposals that achieve the goal of not adding Built-Using
fields to the entire archive are welcome.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
]”) I need to keep using the Built-Using control field.
> Especially since it's conceivable that a new version of gnu-efi breaks
> compatibility with some specific efi implementation. However, on a
> technical level, I don't really see the difference between my case and
> linking
On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Lukas Schwaighofer wrote:
> I read the update in policy 4.1.3 and I'm not sure how to handle the
> change / clarification of the Built-Using control field for the
> syslinux package (which I maintain in the debian-cd team).
I suggest you ask this
Hi mentors,
I read the update in policy 4.1.3 and I'm not sure how to handle the
change / clarification of the Built-Using control field for the
syslinux package (which I maintain in the debian-cd team). I have two
questions:
The syslinux-efi binary package contains parts of the gnu-efi package
* Paul Wise <p...@debian.org>, 2016-09-04, 09:46:
As I understand Policy, Built-Using: should mention any packages,
parts of which were incorporated into binary package, including any
debhelper, that insert shell snippets into maintainer scripts,
flex/bison.
There is some controversy
On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 2:02 AM, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
> As I understand Policy, Built-Using: should mention any packages, parts
> of which were incorporated into binary package, including any debhelper, that
> insert shell snippets into maintainer scripts, flex/bison.
There is some co
Hello!
As I understand Policy, Built-Using: should mention any packages, parts
of which were incorporated into binary package, including any debhelper, that
insert shell snippets into maintainer scripts, flex/bison.
Which debhelper is used to create this field, and isn't it is superseeded
Hi!
On 21-10-2015 18:02, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> See the mp4h package currently in testing for an example.
Apart from the example of mp4h also found in the bash package. The bash
was specific glibc.
Thanks for your help.
cheers
--
Giovani Ferreira
http://softwarelivre.org/jova2
GNU/Linux
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:05:11PM -0200, Giovani Ferreira wrote:
> I'll update the unhide package and I need help.
> The package has a serious bug #769345, which is about statically-linked
> glibc. According to the bug and Debian policy 7.8 is required the
> Built-Using field in d/co
Hello mentors,
I'll update the unhide package and I need help.
The package has a serious bug #769345, which is about statically-linked
glibc. According to the bug and Debian policy 7.8 is required the
Built-Using field in d/control.
How should I make this reference?
Another thing, the package
12 matches
Mail list logo
