Your message dated Sun, 16 Jul 2017 19:53:24 -0700
with message-id
Your message dated Sun, 16 Jul 2017 19:27:19 -0700
with message-id
On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello Paul,
>
> On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 04:36:55PM -0700, Paul Hardy wrote:
>> I was wondering if a maintainer signed a .dsc file in a package that
>> was uploaded (and hence signed) by a sponsor, that the FTP server
Sean,
On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello Paul,
>
> On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 04:28:03PM -0700, Paul Hardy wrote:
>> My intention was to point someone new to packaging fonts in Debian in
>> the direction of an easy path, rather than leaving it up
Hello Paul,
On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 04:36:55PM -0700, Paul Hardy wrote:
> I was wondering if a maintainer signed a .dsc file in a package that
> was uploaded (and hence signed) by a sponsor, that the FTP server
> would reject the .dsc file for having an invalid signature.
The sponsor would
Hello Paul,
On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 04:28:03PM -0700, Paul Hardy wrote:
> My intention was to point someone new to packaging fonts in Debian in
> the direction of an easy path, rather than leaving it up to that
> person to find things out the hard way--or worse yet, doing things the
> hard way.
On Wed, 2017-06-21 at 16:01 -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
[...]
> I'd like to restart this discussion. My understanding is that all the
> relevant infrastructure for build profiles is in place, so what's left
> is to add some text to policy documenting it.
>
> Is my understanding correct? Any
Russ,
On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Paul Hardy writes:
>
>> ...Debian Policy Manual, Section 5.4, "Debian source control files - .dsc",
>> states in the first sentence:
>
>> "This file consists of a single paragraph, possibly
Control: severity 868496 wishlist
On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello Paul,
>
> On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 02:56:24AM -0700, Paul Hardy wrote:
>> Then would you consider it acceptable to make some mention in a
>> footnote to the effect that with
Processing control commands:
> severity 868496 wishlist
Bug #868496 [debian-policy] debian-policy: Please Clarify Need for
update-fonts-dir in postinst and postrm Scripts
Severity set to 'wishlist' from 'minor'
--
868496: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=868496
Debian Bug
On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 12:21:40PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> No, the policy doesn't talk about dh_* and other helpers (except in
> footnotes).
Right. In a sense, Policy is the reference against which such helpers
are developed.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP
Hello Paul,
On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 02:56:24AM -0700, Paul Hardy wrote:
> Then would you consider it acceptable to make some mention in a
> footnote to the effect that with the latest "dh" build tools, it isn't
> necessary to have postinst and postrm scripts in the debian directory
> for this
Paul Hardy writes:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 4.0.0.4
> Severity: wishlist
> Debian Policy Manual, Section 5.4, "Debian source control files - .dsc",
> states in the first sentence:
> "This file consists of a single paragraph, possibly surrounded by a PGP
>
Andrey,
On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 09:57:32PM -0700, Paul Hardy wrote:
>> "Font packages must invoke update-fonts-dir on each directory into
>> which they install fonts. This invocation must occur in both the
>>
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 09:57:32PM -0700, Paul Hardy wrote:
> "Font packages must invoke update-fonts-dir on each directory into
> which they install fonts. This invocation must occur in both the
> postinst (for all arguments) and postrm (for all arguments except
> upgrade) scripts."
>
>
15 matches
Mail list logo