On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 12:01:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 11:01:53PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
I just checked: in policy 3.1.1.1, they were a MUST (section 2.4.2).
I don't know when that got lost. So we'll go back to it.
Must/Should/May only had given
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 10:54:48AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
What *is* reasonable is to say I don't yet have time to deal with
this.
So the source dependencies are a MUST, but we don't yet file RC bugs,
probably not even normal bugs against missing source dependencies.
We can partially
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 10:54:48AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 12:01:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 11:01:53PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
I just checked: in policy 3.1.1.1, they were a MUST (section 2.4.2).
I don't know when that got
Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 10:54:48AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
[So I guess that we stick with debian/rules MUST be makefiles as
well!]
Eh? Until there's an accepted amendment to change it, yes.
Heh, when did that happen? That has never been obligatory, and
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 02:12:04PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 10:54:48AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
[So I guess that we stick with debian/rules MUST be makefiles as
well!]
Eh? Until there's an accepted amendment to change it,
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 01:12:47PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 10:54:48AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
What *is* reasonable is to say I don't yet have time to deal with
this.
So the source dependencies are a MUST, but we don't yet file RC bugs,
probably not even
On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 11:01:53PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
I just checked: in policy 3.1.1.1, they were a MUST (section 2.4.2).
I don't know when that got lost. So we'll go back to it.
Must/Should/May only had given meanings in 3.2.1.0, so it was an accepted
amendment to change that must
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 01:15:29PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 01:04:47PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 01:41:40AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
Policy should now require packages to specify build time dependencies
(i.e., packages which require
On Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 07:59:17PM -1000, Brian Russo wrote:
I can't speak first hand, but only from some of the bug reports I've
received occasionally, and I think this makes the auto builder's job
just at least a bit easier (having buil-depends)
Certainly.
I think it should be MUST for sid
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 08:39:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
If you want packages to support build-depends, start filing wishlist bugs
against packages that don't have build-depends. If you want to actually
do something particularly useful, work out what each package's build
dependencies are
On 20010225T014140+, Julian Gilbey wrote:
Policy should now require packages to specify build time dependencies
(i.e., packages which require ... MUST specify...)
Build time dependencies have been in policy for 18 months already.
Seconded.
BTW, this was how I intended it when I wrote
On 20010225T141840+0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On 20010225T014140+, Julian Gilbey wrote:
Policy should now require packages to specify build time dependencies
(i.e., packages which require ... MUST specify...)
Build time dependencies have been in policy for 18 months already.
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 02:40:24PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On 20010225T141840+0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On 20010225T014140+, Julian Gilbey wrote:
Policy should now require packages to specify build time dependencies
(i.e., packages which require ... MUST
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 12:59:14PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
I want to see the diff to policy. It's possible to wreck this whole
thijng with careless wording.
2.4.2. Package relationships
-Source packages should specify which binary packages they
On 20010225T131051+, Julian Gilbey wrote:
Of course, with the question of empty dependency lists, there's a
problem
Indeed, and I'd like that to be explicitly addressed somewhere.
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 01:14:47PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
I make this point from self-interest. I have a few packages like
that, and I'd prefer not to get one misguided bugreport after
another (not to mention Lintian warnings) about them not having
Build-Depends.
So please keep
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 03:26:08PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On 20010225T131051+, Julian Gilbey wrote:
Of course, with the question of empty dependency lists, there's a
problem
Indeed, and I'd like that to be explicitly addressed somewhere.
But it's essentially impossible
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 12:59:14PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
But Anthony does have a good point, though.
...which I'm still not sure people are grokking.
Here's some more explanation:
1) Policy is meant to document existing practice. If Build-depends are a
neat new feature that can be
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 12:16:56AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 12:59:14PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
But Anthony does have a good point, though.
...which I'm still not sure people are grokking.
Here's some more explanation:
I agree with everything you've pointed
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.2.0
Severity: wishlist
Policy should now require packages to specify build time dependencies
(i.e., packages which require ... MUST specify...)
Build time dependencies have been in policy for 18 months already.
Julian
--
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.2.0
Severity: wishlist
Policy should now require packages to specify build time dependencies
(i.e., packages which require ... MUST specify...)
seconded.
yours,
* Julian Gilbey [EMAIL PROTECTED] [20010225 01:41]:
Policy should now require packages to specify build time dependencies
(i.e., packages which require ... MUST specify...)
Seconded.
--
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgpMyoivaS0ld.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 01:41:40AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.2.0
Severity: wishlist
Policy should now require packages to specify build time dependencies
(i.e., packages which require ... MUST specify...)
I object to this; in sid there are 4284 source
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 04:12:33AM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
If you'd like to change this, please file wishlist bugs against packages
that don't have Build-Depends, with the correct Build-Depends: line. Once
we're at, say, 90% of packages (another 1618 packages away) supporting
24 matches
Mail list logo
