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 Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 11:29:12AM -0300, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote:
This has now been seconded twice; it should have its status changed to
accepted and I guess that the sysvinit and file-rc packages should
have bugs against them to include the
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
