Ben == Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben If the maintainer can't add The docs reference paths that do
Ben not exist on a Debian system to README.Debian, then I would
Ben think something is severely wrong with how the package is
Ben maintained.
I would suggest that it
* Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010305 22:20]:
I would suggest that it would be better use of the maintainers time
fixing problems.
It shouldn't be that tough; note whatever the --prefix etc options are
to the configure script if it has one, and make a note of this in
README.Debian. For those
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 12:07:20AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 10:24:41AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 09:01:23AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
IMO, it should say packages SHOULD change the docs to match the package
setup, and there MUST be a
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 12:01:05PM +0100, Richard Braakman wrote:
I think the basic problem here is that the policy manual is using
MUST and SHOULD (actually _must_ and _should_) in a different sense
than anywhere else.
Actually it's just the words `must' and `should', capitalisation and
On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 01:42:18PM -0800, C.M. Connelly wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.2.0
Severity: normal
Section 3.2 begins:
3.2 List of fields
This list here is not supposed to be exhaustive. Most fields
are dealt with elsewhere in this document and in the
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 12:01:05PM +0100, Richard Braakman wrote:
I think the basic problem here is that the policy manual is using
MUST and SHOULD (actually _must_ and _should_) in a different sense
than anywhere else. This is hard to adjust to for someone used to
reading RFCs.
The usage
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
reassign 33251 debian-policy
thanks
Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 01:05:32AM -1000, Brian Russo wrote:
wouldn't it make more sense to put it in /usr/lib/${arch}/
or /usr/${arch}/lib ?
That way its easy to look
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 10:38:53PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
So - reassigning the lintian bug about this to policy.
Am I right in taking from the above that /usr/${arch} is essentially a
miniature mirror of the /usr filesystem? They certainly seem to have
similar structures. Thus,
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.2.0
Severity: minor
A copy of the GNU General Public License is available as
/usr/share/common-licences/GPL ...
That should be 'common-licenses'. The link later in the same sentence
refers to the The GNU Public Licence; my preference for UK spelling
aside,
On Tue, 06 Mar 2001 at 18:12:24 -0500, Robb Kidd wrote:
Colin Watson wrote:
A copy of the GNU General Public License is available as
/usr/share/common-licences/GPL ...^^
Should it not also read ... is available at ...?
I think I prefer is available as; I tend
10 matches
Mail list logo
