Sean Whitton writes:
> We have two seconded solutions, so you and I should perhaps break the
> tie. I prefer the Bill's 'Autobuild: no' solution as the more
> conservative change: we only have data about packages that are currently
> autobuilt, not those that aren't, so we might be making those
On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 09:49:58PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> If we go that route, here is a proposed alternative patch:
>
> --- a/policy/ch-source.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-source.rst
> @@ -338,7 +338,8 @@
> For example, the build target should pass ``--disable-silent-rules``
> to any
On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 09:49:58PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On 2024-04-04 22:38, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 01:22:19PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > I'm not sure what I think about that. We have a general escape hatch
> > > already for non-free packages in Policy
Hello,
On Sat 06 Apr 2024 at 12:15pm +08, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hi Russ,
>
> We have two seconded solutions, so you and I should perhaps break the
> tie. I prefer the Bill's 'Autobuild: no' solution as the more
> conservative change: we only have data about packages that are currently
>
Hi Russ,
We have two seconded solutions, so you and I should perhaps break the
tie. I prefer the Bill's 'Autobuild: no' solution as the more
conservative change: we only have data about packages that are currently
autobuilt, not those that aren't, so we might be making those buggy if
we just ban
> "Aurelien" == Aurelien Jarno writes:
Aurelien> If we go that route, here is a proposed alternative patch:
Aurelien> --- a/policy/ch-source.rst
Aurelien> +++ b/policy/ch-source.rst
Aurelien> @@ -338,7 +338,8 @@
Aurelien> For example, the build target should pass
On 2024-04-04 22:38, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 01:22:19PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I'm not sure what I think about that. We have a general escape hatch
> > already for non-free packages in Policy 2.2.3 that says they may not fully
> > comply with Policy, which may be
On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 01:22:19PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I'm not sure what I think about that. We have a general escape hatch
> already for non-free packages in Policy 2.2.3 that says they may not fully
> comply with Policy, which may be sufficient.
But precisely, we _do_ want non-free
Philipp Kern writes:
> On 04.04.24 20:51, Bill Allombert wrote:
>> I still think we should allow Autobuild: no as an escape hatch. If we
>> want to require non-free package to be autobuildable, we should be more
>> explicit about it (and probably require more feedback from
>> debian-devel).
>
Hi,
On 04.04.24 20:51, Bill Allombert wrote:
I still think we should allow Autobuild: no as an escape hatch.
If we want to require non-free package to be autobuildable, we should
be more explicit about it (and probably require more feedback from
debian-devel).
There is no requirement for
On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 09:25:36PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 04.04.24 20:51, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > I still think we should allow Autobuild: no as an escape hatch.
> > If we want to require non-free package to be autobuildable, we should
> > be more explicit about it (and
On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 11:42:34AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Tobias Frost writes:
> > On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 10:58:37PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
> >> Thanks Philipp. Following that result, please find a patch proposal:
> >>
> >> --- a/policy/ch-source.rst
> >> +++
12 matches
Mail list logo
