David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tuesday 26 April 2005 20:53, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> If there is some good documentation of archive sections that I've
>> overlooked, please do let me know.
> I tend to use dselect, but there are others who like aptitude more.
> In case of utter conf
On Tuesday 26 April 2005 20:53, Russ Allbery wrote:
> If there is some good documentation of archive sections that I've
> overlooked, please do let me know.
I tend to use dselect, but there are others who like aptitude more.
In case of utter confusion, asking on -mentor is probably a good idea to
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 11:57:53AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> dbs, one of the larger contributors to this particular packaging style,
>> uses "setup", so if "setup" was used all the dbs packages at least
>> would immediately satisfy the should.
> Y
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 11:57:53AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tuesday 26 April 2005 16:14, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> >> True. What I'm looking for is something unique; so 'source' is clearly
> >> right out. Perhaps 'edit' could be better, or 'fin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Russ Allbery wrote:
> David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>>As a non-DD I'd say that that is not a question of policy, but of
>>quality of implementation: There are tools which rely on the section of
>>a package to reason about them (deborp
David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tuesday 26 April 2005 16:14, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> True. What I'm looking for is something unique; so 'source' is clearly
>> right out. Perhaps 'edit' could be better, or 'finish'. Suggestions are
>> most certainly welcome.
> 'prepare' ?
dbs, on
David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As a non-DD I'd say that that is not a question of policy, but of
> quality of implementation: There are tools which rely on the section of
> a package to reason about them (deborphan for example).
> So unless you have a good reason for putting that pac
On Tuesday 26 April 2005 16:14, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 04:07:01PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > Don't know why, this must be way before my time in Debian...
> > It would be good to check for the amount of packages affected by that
> > nevertheless.
>
> True. What I'm
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 04:07:01PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 02:37:34PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 01:26:41PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 11:32:17AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > > + In ad
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050426 15:10]:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 01:26:41PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 11:32:17AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > + In addition, maintainers should create a target
> > > + source to the debian/rules file. This
>
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 02:37:34PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 01:26:41PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 11:32:17AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > + In addition, maintainers should create a target
> > > + source to the debian/rules f
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 04:07:01PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 02:37:34PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Both cases where I used 'must' do not make packages instantly buggy,
> > since they only apply to the 'source' target (that is the idea, at
> > least; if the wor
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 11:32:17AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> I'm hereby rescinding all previous proposals I made on #250202, to
> replace them with the following:
>
> --- policy.sgml.orig 2005-04-26 11:02:02.0 +0200
> +++ policy.sgml 2005-04-26 11:28:10.0 +0200
> (...)
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 01:26:41PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 11:32:17AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > + In addition, maintainers should create a target
> > + source to the debian/rules file. This
> > + target, if present, should unpack source archives
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 11:32:17AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> + In addition, maintainers should create a target
> + source to the debian/rules file. This
> + target, if present, should unpack source archives, apply
> + patches, generate files, and generally prepare the
Hi,
There have been two suggestions to fix this issue:
* Mandate common names for debian/rules targets,
* Use a debian/README.source to document used debian/rules targets.
At first sight, these seem to be conflicting, especially if one
considers Bill's objection to suggesting names. However, as I
On Tuesday 26 April 2005 02:49, Joerg Sommer wrote:
> must be a development package (with header files) be in libdevel?
> Currently libmodplug-dev is in sound, but I thought the policy says
> packages they are intented on development must be in devel or libdevel.
> But I can't find where it is said
17 matches
Mail list logo
