Hello Helmut
On 12.10.2020 19:30, Helmut Grohne wrote:
You appear to be talking about binary packages. This bug is about source
packages. When you unpack a source package, you are creating a directory
hiearchy rooted at the point where you start unpacking. There is not
possibly any reasonable
On 12.10.2020 16:22, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 04:10:00PM +0200, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
Now we are more strict on where we can split filesystems
What do you mean?
If I remember correctly, now we do not support / and /usr to be on a
different filesystems, and I
On 13.09.2020 12:52, Helmut Grohne wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.5.0.3
Severity: wishlist
Jakub stumbled into the "No hard links in source packages" requirement
added around 1996 and couldn't make sense of it. Neither could Christoph
nor myself. tar does support hard links just fine.
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, Jun 04 2009, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
I think we could forbid echo -n on maintainer and other scripts, but
allow it on init.d scripts. Rationale:
- portability is more important on other scripts, and it is also not so
frequent to use echo -n
- init.d
Raphael Geissert wrote:
On Tuesday 02 June 2009 12:54:00 Bill Allombert wrote:
[...]
It does not make sense to policy to discourage echo -n. Policy
could deprecate it in favor of something else, but I do not see
any alternative mentioned in this bug report, and otherwise
discouraging echo -n
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
- Ability to recognize and render the following logical entities, in
decreasing order of importance:
+ unordered lists
+ ordered lists
really needed?
+ emphasis
+ strong emphasis
+ definition lists
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 09:46:15AM +0100, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Given that m-t-a is mentioned explicitly in policy, and that default-mta
will be a virtual package, I think this should be recorded in policy as well
- though if a clear consensus emerges on
Russ Allbery wrote:
Kel Modderman k...@otaku42.de writes:
It is the opinion of myself and Petter Reinholdtsen, maintainers of the
sysvinit package, that the last sentence of §9.3.1 of policy is no
longer relevant and should be removed:
Also, if the script name ends in .sh, the script will
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
First, section 4.14 should list things that one does not need to
describe in debian/README.source. For example, the use of one of the
standard patch systems (quilt, dpatch, simple-patchsys) doesn't need
to be documented, since every NMUer should be able to work with
Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
(Further discussion should happen on [EMAIL PROTECTED], but please
CC me.)
During Manoj's policy talk at DebConf8, Gerfried opened the subject
of the policy's stand on relative and absolute symlinks, which
currently is absolute if going through top-level, relative
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 06:25:14PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 02 May 2008 17:45:30 +0200, Carl Fürstenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Policy section 3.8, about essential packages, doesn't explain when/why
essential is
Hello list!
I followed Manoj talk at DebConf7, and I would like to help.
I'm trying to find and write down some idea, but they
inevitably give me some questions:
1- Is available already a starting document?
2- some guidelines about docbook?
3- what is the scope?
It should be like actual
12 matches
Mail list logo
