Ian Murdock writes ("Re: Release management and package announcements"):
> I agree with Ian--putting the debian-1.0 tree under private makes it
> difficult for it to double as our bleeding edge a.out distribution.
> (If we had a separate a.out bleeding edge tree, I'd agr
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 95 22:05 GMT
From: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bruce Perens writes ("Re: debian-1.0 "):
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > it might create problems for the mirrors.
>
> I think that while it is in its current state, 1.0 should not be where
> mirrors will fi
> > > > Agreed. I don't think the location should be decided by individual
> > > > package maintainers, though they will be free to suggest a location.
> > >
> > > The Section field from the control file can be used for this.
> >
> > If the SECTION field is not going to reliably contain the sec
Bill Mitchell writes ("Re: Release management and package announcements"):
> Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > >Somehow the FTP site maintainer's programs also need to know which
> > >section (subdirectory) the files should go in. I
J. H. M. Dassen writes ("Re: Release management and package announcements"):
>[Ian Murdock writes:]
> >From: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >I think we should start with an a.out 1.0 tree. This will give us a
> >bleeding edge
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >Somehow the FTP site maintainer's programs also need to know which
> >section (subdirectory) the files should go in. I suggest that this
> >information be provided by the `overrides' file on the FTP site, which
> >is already used by the npd
>From: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Ian Murdock writes ("Re: Release management and package announcements"):
>> Are we going to start with an a.out 1.0 and migrate to an ELF 1.0?
>> If so, I'd agree that this is what we should do (an
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 95 13:16 GMT
From: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ian Murdock writes ("Re: Release management and package announcements"):
> Are we going to start with an a.out 1.0 and migrate to an ELF 1.0?
> If so, I'd agree that this is what we
Ian Murdock writes ("Re: Release management and package announcements"):
> Are we going to start with an a.out 1.0 and migrate to an ELF 1.0?
> If so, I'd agree that this is what we should do (and what I'll do
> if we all think this is the best option).
I think we s
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 95 01:04 GMT
From: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
If this is true then we need to copy the whole of the binary area from
0.93 to 1.0, so that 1.0 instantly becomes the `bleeding-edge'
distribution.
Are we going to start with an a.out 1.0 and migrate to an ELF 1.0
On Sun, 29 Oct 1995, Ian Jackson wrote:
> We need to decide what information the package maintainer needs to
> supply to the FTP site maintainer for the correct placement of the
> package.
>[...]
> I don't particularly care about how this is represented in the
> (machine-readable) dchanges forma
There is, I think, an overlap between the release management strategy
and the package announcement format thread.
We need to decide what information the package maintainer needs to
supply to the FTP site maintainer for the correct placement of the
package.
Can I take it that following the thread
12 matches
Mail list logo
