On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:51:24 -0600, Gunnar Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Of course, I'm playing with the numbers. There are still smaller
machines, there are the embedded-minded people, and of course, there
would be no sane way to verify the GPL3 was the same GPL3 all over if
we were to kill
Manoj Srivastava dijo [Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 09:16:17AM -0500]:
Of course, I'm playing with the numbers. There are still smaller
machines, there are the embedded-minded people, and of course, there
would be no sane way to verify the GPL3 was the same GPL3 all over if
we were to kill
Gunnar Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
_One_ thing that makes me favor common-licenses is being able to do
wide checks to count the number of packages saying to adhere to a
given license - As I said, nothing guarantees that the COPYING file in
my (upstream) package is the same as in yours (for
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:47:52 -0600, Gunnar Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava dijo [Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 09:16:17AM -0500]:
Of course, I'm playing with the numbers. There are still smaller
machines, there are the embedded-minded people, and of course,
there would be no sane way
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.7.3.0
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
The scripts section of chapter 10 is somewhat ambiguous about
whether declaring multiple local variables is acceptable or not:
file:///usr/share/doc/debian-policy/policy.html/ch-files.html#s-scripts
For example, is the
Daniel Kahn Gillmor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.7.3.0
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
The scripts section of chapter 10 is somewhat ambiguous about
whether declaring multiple local variables is acceptable or not:
Thanks for the quick response, Russ.
On Thu 2008-03-27 16:16:31 -0400, Russ Allbery wrote:
The intention when I originally wrote the text was to not allow declaring
multiple variables with one local line, since at the time I was told that
some shells didn't support this.
I think your first
7 matches
Mail list logo
