Le Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 05:30:12PM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
>
> The attached patch is a third attempt, which underlines that the Built-Using
> field is particularly useful when a given package, contributing contents
> included in another package, can not be replaced by a later version. It
Thanks everybody for your contributions to clarify the uses case of the
Built-Using field.
The attached patch is a third attempt, which underlines that the Built-Using
field is particularly useful when a given package, contributing contents
included in another package, can not be replaced by a lat
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 03:01:51PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 09:08:55AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > The question is how to make it clear that's not the intent, which
> > requires figuring out how to separate the other use cases from the gcc
> > and glibc case.
>
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 09:08:55AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The question is how to make it clear that's not the intent, which
> requires figuring out how to separate the other use cases from the gcc
> and glibc case.
I guess the general answer you're looking for depends on the use cases
Built-
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
tag 688251 - patch
usertags 688251 discussion
thanks
Le Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 09:08:55AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>
> The basic problem that we're trying to solve is that nearly every package
> in Debian incorporates code from gcc and/or libc into the re
Paul Wise writes:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
>> I paste below the current wording in the Policy 3.9.4. If you have an
>> improvement to propose, that would be much appreciated !
> The wording doesn't appear confusing to me so I'm not the best person
> to propose w
On 09/23/2013 10:56, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 5:33 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
>> do you think that the attached patch would solve the problem ?
>
> There are more reasons for using Built-Using than licenses, for example:
>
> Rebuilding against updated versions of static libraries
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I paste below the current wording in the Policy 3.9.4. If you have an
> improvement to propose, that would be much appreciated !
The wording doesn't appear confusing to me so I'm not the best person
to propose wording changes.
> The prob
Le Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 10:56:28AM +0200, Paul Wise a écrit :
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 5:33 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
>
> > do you think that the attached patch would solve the problem ?
>
> There are more reasons for using Built-Using than licenses, for example:
>
> Rebuilding against updated
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 5:33 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
> do you think that the attached patch would solve the problem ?
There are more reasons for using Built-Using than licenses, for example:
Rebuilding against updated versions of static libraries.
Rebuilding the debian-installer-*-netboot-* pa
tag 688251 patch
thanks
Le Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 08:57:34AM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
>
> I would like to make the short-term clarification for the next revision of the
> Policy. In its simplest form, it could be the addition of something like
> "when
> the combination of licenses requires
11 matches
Mail list logo
