Steve == Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Steve On 09-Sep-00, 02:57 (CDT), Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Chris == Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Chris Actually, since policy is already available on-line, it's quite
Chris possible that many
Steve == Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Steve On 09-Sep-00, 02:57 (CDT), Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris == Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Chris Actually, since policy is already available on-line, it's quite
Chris possible that many debian developers
On 09-Sep-00, 02:57 (CDT), Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris == Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Chris Actually, since policy is already available on-line, it's quite
Chris possible that many debian developers *don't* have the policy package
Chris installed.
Chris == Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Chris Actually, since policy is already available on-line, it's quite
Chris possible that many debian developers *don't* have the policy package
Chris installed.
Hmm. Don't we all have task-debian-dev installed?
manoj
--
On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 02:57:23AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Chris == Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Chris Actually, since policy is already available on-line, it's quite
Chris possible that many debian developers *don't* have the policy package
Chris installed.
Hmm.
Julian == Julian Gilbey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Julian On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 01:06:30PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
Which is just a stupid pain in the ass. I had to track through three
different references and finally install the build-depends package to
find out what I could leave
On 2902T005640-0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
misleading, note in policy, would it not be better to instead improve
the visibility if the build depnds package and arrange to have the
updated contents present on the web page?
The web page part is already arranged, see Developer's Corner.
On 2902T124921+0200, Arthur Korn wrote:
BTW: why is it even a seperate package? IMO the build-essential
list should be included with ether the debian-policy package or
the packaging-manual. This way every debian developer has this
lists in a sensible place already installed.
There were
On Sat, Sep 02, 2000 at 12:49:21PM +0200, Arthur Korn wrote:
BTW: why is it even a seperate package? IMO the build-essential
list should be included with ether the debian-policy package or
the packaging-manual. This way every debian developer has this
lists in a sensible place already
On 2901T104626-0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
find. The policy manual says look in build-essential. The control
file for Build-essential says look in policy manual
The policy manual says look for the *informational* list in
build-essential. build-essential says look for the *definition* in
On 31-Aug-00, 12:43 (CDT), Julian Gilbey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 08:29:30PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
Which is just a stupid pain in the ass. I had to track through three
different references and finally install the build-depends package to
find
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 01:06:30PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
Which is just a stupid pain in the ass. I had to track through three
different references and finally install the build-depends package to
find out what I could leave out of by Build-Depends stanza. It would
*much* easier for
On 2830T234249+0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 01:06:30PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
Which is just a stupid pain in the ass. I had to track through three
different references and finally install the build-depends package to
find out what I could leave out of by
On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 08:29:30PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
Which is just a stupid pain in the ass. I had to track through three
different references and finally install the build-depends package to
find out what I could leave out of by Build-Depends stanza. It would
*much*
On 2829T010700+0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Josip Rodin wrote:
On Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 06:23:52PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
The packaging manually actually says it is a makefile:
Yes, and that makes it policy.
No it doesn't.
Interesting. I seem to recall that
Joey == Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joey Well that wording has been there forever, so this cannot be a recent
Joey change in policy, though it could be a change in the way some people
Joey interpret policy.
My impression has always been that the packaging manual was
policy.
Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I think the tie has come for us to reexamine the packaging
manual, and extract the things that ought to be policy, and let the
other bits go to the dpkg maintianers for update.
Very much agreed!
Wichert.
--
On Mon 28 Aug 2000, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On 2828T153322+0200, Paul Slootman wrote:
anyway. BTW, what is the list of build essential packages? I'm
assuming that gcc libc6-dev etc. don't need to be put in. However,
this isn't discussed in the packaging manual at section 8.7.
On 2828T172935+0200, Paul Slootman wrote:
An informational list can be found in package `build-essential'.
(NOTE: Don't file bugs about debhelper against this package. They will
be summarily closed. If you feel that the criteria for selecting
build-essential packages are wrong, bug
If someone wants to create another build daemon (for i386!) and can't
be bothered to install debhelper, I personally am not going to feel
sorry for them.
FYI, the build daemons assume debhelper is build essential just to
preserve sanity. That does not make build-deps any less important,
On Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 06:53:47PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
Hmm, the dependency on make is flawed, as it is perfectly possible to
write debian/rules that is a perl script, for example.
If you find a flaw in my application of the criteria, bug reports against
build-essential are
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 05:59:11PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
Which is rather unwarranted... all that should be necessary is a executable
file that can act differently based on the first command-line argument
passed to it. Whether it is makefile, a shell or a Perl script, or even a
On Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 05:59:11PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
Which is rather unwarranted... all that should be necessary is a executable
file that can act differently based on the first command-line argument
passed to it. Whether it is makefile, a shell or a Perl script, or even a
compiled
On Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 06:23:52PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
Which is rather unwarranted... all that should be necessary is a executable
file that can act differently based on the first command-line argument
passed to it. Whether it is makefile, a shell or a Perl script, or even a
Josip Rodin wrote:
The packaging manually actually says it is a makefile:
Yes, and that makes it policy.
I don't know if Manoj succeeded in making the packaging man a part of the
policy.
That's the way it is, if I'm not mistaken.
This is news to me; when did it happen?
--
see shy
On Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 03:03:45PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
The packaging manually actually says it is a makefile:
Yes, and that makes it policy.
I don't know if Manoj succeeded in making the packaging man a part of the
policy.
That's the way it is, if I'm not mistaken.
Josip Rodin wrote:
The Policy says:
This manual does _not_ describe the technical mechanisms involved in
package creation, installation, and removal. This information can be
found in the _Debian Packaging Manual_ and the _Debian System
Administrators' Manual_.
I read
On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 12:22:44AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
Perhaps my logic is flawed; anyway, even if it's not official, the packaging
manual should be changed to say that non-makefile debian/rules files are
allowed.
In this case, you need to replace it with machine-independant scripts or
Previously Josip Rodin wrote:
On Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 06:23:52PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
The packaging manually actually says it is a makefile:
Yes, and that makes it policy.
No it doesn't.
Wichert.
--
_
/
29 matches
Mail list logo
