Thibaut Paumard writes:
> Le 21 oct. 09 à 11:03, Jonathan Niehof a écrit :
>
>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 5:48 AM, Ben Finney
>> > > wrote:
>>
>>> * Remove the convenience copy from the original source archive, or
>>> merely from the binary package?
>>
>> Related question:
>> Since the source pack
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 12:05 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > This is because we don't only distribute the binaries; we also
> > distribute the source.
>
> But the upstream source already has them (in the source files
> themselves or other files).
Sure,
Le 21 oct. 09 à 11:03, Jonathan Niehof a écrit :
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 5:48 AM, Ben Finney > wrote:
* Remove the convenience copy from the original source archive, or
merely from the binary package?
Related question:
Since the source package consists of orig.tar.gz and a .diff, how
would
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 5:48 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
> * Remove the convenience copy from the original source archive, or
> merely from the binary package?
Related question:
Since the source package consists of orig.tar.gz and a .diff, how
would one "remove the convenience copy from the original
On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 12:05 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> > ftpmasters seem to be requiring everything in the source to be
> > documented in debian/copyright (really annoying, I know).
>
> This is because we don't only distribute the binaries; we also
>
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> ftpmasters seem to be requiring everything in the source to be
> documented in debian/copyright (really annoying, I know).
This is because we don't only distribute the binaries; we also
distribute the source. ftpmaster has to check all of this out anywa
On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 20:48 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Howdy all,
>
> I recall this discussion occurring a few times, but I'm not sure of the
> recommended best practice.
>
> We can all agree that “convenience copies” of third-party library code
> are to be avoided, and to work with upstream to r
Ben Finney wrote:
>* Declare dependencies on the version of the library in Debian, even
> though that version may be later than the convenience copy currently
> in the original source?
Section 4.1.3 of Debian policy says
If the included code is already in the Debian archive in the form
Howdy all,
I recall this discussion occurring a few times, but I'm not sure of the
recommended best practice.
We can all agree that “convenience copies” of third-party library code
are to be avoided, and to work with upstream to remove them where
feasible. What I'm not clear on are the details of
9 matches
Mail list logo
