Giacomo A. Catenazzi, le Wed 12 Aug 2009 07:54:33 +0200, a écrit :
> Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Gunnar Wolf, le Tue 11 Aug 2009 13:28:08 -0500, a écrit :
> >> while length(str) in any language up to the 1990s was a mere
> >> substraction, now we must go through the string checking each byte to
> >>
Giacomo A. Catenazzi, le Wed 12 Aug 2009 08:03:30 +0200, a écrit :
> Bastian Blank wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 09:40:35PM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> >> In article <20090811183800.ge5...@const.famille.thibault.fr> you wrote:
> >>> Not necessarily. Any sane implementation should just use
Hello Debian Developers,
I've recently uploaded (thanks to Bart Martens for sponsoring) my first
package and want to adopt the next one. It's cd-discid [1]. Its
debian/control file contains the Conflicts field. This package conflicts
with cdgrab (<< 0.7), which is no longer exists in the reposi
Hi,
the question in the subject may sound a bit naive, but I’m starting to
wonder why we still set the Standards-Version in package control files.
AIUI, this header is here to indicate which version of the policy the
package is supposed to conform to. This way, we have a way to enforce
which poli
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Hi,
the question in the subject may sound a bit naive, but I’m starting to
wonder why we still set the Standards-Version in package control files.
AIUI, this header is here to indicate which version of the policy the
package is supposed to conform to. This way, we have a
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 09:56:49AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Giacomo A. Catenazzi, le Wed 12 Aug 2009 08:03:30 +0200, a écrit :
> > Bastian Blank wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 09:40:35PM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> > >> In article <20090811183800.ge5...@const.famille.thibault.fr> y
Hi,
due to some upcoming changes in the list of supported modules upstream,
the python-gnome2-desktop binary package will be removed soon. Packages
must depend on the individual modules instead.
For example, if the only module used is gnomeapplet, you must depend on
python-gnomeapplet instead. A
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 07:54:33AM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Gunnar Wolf, le Tue 11 Aug 2009 13:28:08 -0500, a écrit :
> >> while length(str) in any language up to the 1990s was a mere
> >> substraction, now we must go through the string checking each byte to
>
It's impressing how quickly threads on this list grow big. :-)
I'm not sure, whether a conclusion is already reached.
1. apt-get install mysql
2. enter mysql client
3. create database test; create table test( test char(10) );
Replace mysql with whatever application you like.
What should be the
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Josselin Mouette writes:
>> If we use build IDs (and this has quite some advantages, like being able
>> to do more than just dump the ddebs on a repository), this can lead to
>> having the same detached debugging symbols in two binary packages, since
>> sometimes a binary is
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
>scribes
> Python Applications Packaging Team
>scribes (U)
Fixed in trunk.
Cheers,
Emilio
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 01:18:12PM +0200, Thomas Koch wrote:
> I'm not sure, whether a conclusion is already reached.
>
> 1. apt-get install mysql
> 2. enter mysql client
> 3. create database test; create table test( test char(10) );
>
> Replace mysql with whatever application you like.
>
> What
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:59:09 +0200
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> However I think this approach doesn’t fit the current way we deal with
> policy changes. The de facto way of dealing with policy breakages
> currently is to directly report serious bugs against packages not
> conforming, regardless of t
On Wed, Aug 12 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the question in the subject may sound a bit naive, but I’m starting to
> wonder why we still set the Standards-Version in package control files.
>
> AIUI, this header is here to indicate which version of the policy the
> package is supposed to
On Wed, Aug 12 2009, Timur Birsh wrote:
> Hello Debian Developers,
>
> I've recently uploaded (thanks to Bart Martens for sponsoring) my first
> package and want to adopt the next one. It's cd-discid [1]. Its
> debian/control file contains the Conflicts field. This package conflicts
> with cdgr
On Wed, Aug 12 2009, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:59:09 +0200
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
>> However I think this approach doesn’t fit the current way we deal with
>> policy changes. The de facto way of dealing with policy breakages
>> currently is to directly report serious bugs
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12 2009, Timur Birsh wrote:
Hello Debian Developers,
I've recently uploaded (thanks to Bart Martens for sponsoring) my first
package and want to adopt the next one. It's cd-discid [1]. Its
debian/control file contains the Conflicts field. This package conf
Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12 2009, Timur Birsh wrote:
Hello Debian Developers,
I've recently uploaded (thanks to Bart Martens for sponsoring) my
first package and want to adopt the next one. It's cd-discid [1]. Its
debian/control file contains the Confl
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> Le lundi 10 août 2009 09:58:04, Jonathan Yu a écrit :
>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 1:13 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
>> > Le Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:33:58AM +0800, Paul Wise a écrit :
>> >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
>>
Le mercredi 12 août 2009 à 08:16 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> > AIUI, this header is here to indicate which version of the policy the
> > package is supposed to conform to. This way, we have a way to enforce
> > which policy versions are supported, e.g. in a stable release, by
> > forbidding
Roger Leigh, le Wed 12 Aug 2009 11:30:50 +0100, a écrit :
> > > The default is UTF-32 or UTF-16, whichever corresponds to the width of
> > > wchar_t.
> >
> > This documentation is bogus BTW. It should read "UCS-4 or UCS-2".
>
> It's "strictly" correct according to the standard.
> http://en.wikip
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mercredi 12 août 2009 à 08:16 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
AIUI, this header is here to indicate which version of the policy the
package is supposed to conform to. This way, we have a way to enforce
which policy versions are supported, e.g. in a stable release, by
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:22:17 -0500
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > In many cases, wouldn't such a relationship be better expressed by a
> > dependency on a package that implemented the new behaviour? Often it's
> > dpkg and many of those situations are already handled via just such a
> > dependency.
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:16:14 -0500
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > What would you think of deprecating this header?
>
> This would be bad, since when someone looks at the package, they
> would not know easily what they have to look for to update the
> package. The Standards Version gives a
On Wed, Aug 12 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 12 août 2009 à 08:16 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>> > AIUI, this header is here to indicate which version of the policy the
>> > package is supposed to conform to. This way, we have a way to enforce
>> > which policy versions are sup
Hi,
Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
>>> I think that as long as the package (cdgrab, in this case) is
>>> not longer in stable, the conflicts line may be removed (we support
>>> partial upgrades from stable, as far as is possible). In this case,
>>> apparently cdgrab is not anywhere, so th
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:16:14 -0500
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
>> > What would you think of deprecating this header?
>>
>> This would be bad, since when someone looks at the package, they
>> would not know easily what they have to l
On Aug 12, Josselin Mouette (j...@debian.org) wrote:
> Le mercredi 12 août 2009 à 08:16 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> > > AIUI, this header is here to indicate which version of the policy the
> > > package is supposed to conform to. This way, we have a way to enforce
> > > which policy
On Wed, Aug 12 2009, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:16:14 -0500
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
>> > What would you think of deprecating this header?
>>
>> This would be bad, since when someone looks at the package, they
>> would not know easily what they have to look for to
On Wed, Aug 12 2009, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:22:17 -0500
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
>> > In many cases, wouldn't such a relationship be better expressed by a
>> > dependency on a package that implemented the new behaviour? Often it's
>> > dpkg and many of those situations a
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:10:43AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12 2009, Neil Williams wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:22:17 -0500
> > Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >
> >> > In many cases, wouldn't such a relationship be better expressed by a
> >> > dependency on a package that im
Hi!
On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 13:03:13 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Open questions:
> * Can we require a one-to-one correspondance between binary package names
> and debug package names that provide symbols for that binary package? I
> think we should; I think it would make the system more strai
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 04:36:23PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> The only /real/ use for the standards version is using it as a starting
> point for upgrading to the current standards version, and that's already
> making the (rather naïve) assumption that it was already fully conforming
> with Policy
On Sun, 2009-08-09 at 16:40:44 -0400, Ryan Kavanagh wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 05:23:43PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > I hope the packages uploaded won't have a «project» binary in the
> > PATH?
>
> At the moment yes, Turnin-NG provides /usr/bin/project since that's what the
> original tu
On Wed, Aug 12 2009, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:10:43AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 12 2009, Neil Williams wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:22:17 -0500
>> > Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >
>> >> > In many cases, wouldn't such a relationship be better expr
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Javier Uruen Val
* Package name: libtext-dhcpleases-perl
Version : 0.9
Upstream Author : Carlos Vicente
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/Text-DHCPLeases/
* License : (Perl Artistic)
Programming Lang: (Perl)
Desc
Le mercredi 12 août 2009 à 11:06 -0400, Neil Roeth a écrit :
> I've had some packages for years during which policy was changed and required
> corresponding changes in my packages. In that case, the "previous developer"
> was me, so I'm pretty confident that the previous developer did at least as
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the question in the subject may sound a bit naive, but I’m starting to
> wonder why we still set the Standards-Version in package control files.
>
> AIUI, this header is here to indicate which version of the policy the
> package is supposed to conform to. This wa
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I do not have a strong opinion about this, apart from the fact
> that it must be present in the sources when someone is looking to
> update the package, and it should be accessible before downloading all
> the sources. So having it in the di
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "K.S. Bhaskar"
* Package name: GT.M
Version : V5.3-004A
Upstream Author : K.S. Bhaskar
* URL : http://fis-gtm.com
* License : AGPL v3
Programming Lang: C with some modules in x86 assembly language
Description :
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "K.S. Bhaskar"
* Package name: VistA
Version : To be determined
Upstream Author : K.S. Bhaskar
* URL : http://worldvista.org/AboutVistA
* License : Public domain, GPL v2, AGPL v3
Programming Lang: MUMPS
Description
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "K.S. Bhaskar"
* Package name: WorldVistA EHR
Version : VOE/ 1.0
Upstream Author : K.S. Bhaskar
* URL : http://worldvista.org/World_VistA_EHR
* License : GPL v2
Programming Lang: MUMPS
Description : WorldVistA E
Josselin Mouette writes:
> This assumes that the previous developer has correctly updated the
> package according to the stated Standards version. Which is, in the
> general case, wrong.
No, it assumes that the previous developer tried to update the package
according to the stated standards vers
On Aug 12, Josselin Mouette (j...@debian.org) wrote:
> Le mercredi 12 août 2009 à 11:06 -0400, Neil Roeth a écrit :
> > I've had some packages for years during which policy was changed and
> > required
> > corresponding changes in my packages. In that case, the "previous
> > developer"
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort writes:
> I'd be in favour of making it optional or deprecating it if we (as in
> the project) were good in adding checks to lintian for changes in the
> policy or reporting bugs where it's not possible (or in addition to the
> checks).
I already attempt to add checks to L
Neil Williams writes:
> In which case all we need is the existing lintian check and for
> Standards-Version to be ignored by dpkg-dev so that it doesn't get into
> the .dsc, it doesn't get into the Sources.gz and it is finally OK to get
> rid of all these pointless messages in debian/changelog.gz
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Tue Aug 11 10:12, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> > Personally I don't think we should do a GR to recommend a freeze or release
> > date.
> > We already used the DPL election to push a release, when it was *long* due,
> > but
> > I don't think we sho
Le mercredi 12 août 2009 à 14:17 -0400, Neil Roeth a écrit :
> If people don't have time to handle all their packages properly, they should
> reduce the number of packages they maintain.
I’ve seen this kind of arguments again and again, and every time it
looks more stupid to me. If you don’t have
On 11826 March 1977, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> The proposal is (very briefly) to make dak accept .ddeb packages (containing
> debugging symbols using build-ids), and to then modify helper tools to
> automatically generate them and add them to the changes file. I've written
> down
> the deta
Hello.
I'm creating my first package, after reading the debian policy and
others mails in 'debian-mentors' list I want to delete the ITP Bug
#539568 in order to create a new one with the same library but with
other name .. How can I do that?
Thanks
signature.asc
Description: Esta parte del
Hello Leinier,
first of all, this question is more fit for debian-mentors that for
-devel, so I'm adding the list to CC (please follow up there, removing
-devel).
2009/8/12 Leinier Cruz Salfran :
> Hello.
>
> I'm creating my first package, after reading the debian policy and
> others mails in 'deb
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:03:30 +0100
Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 01:18:12PM +0200, Thomas Koch wrote:
> > I'm not sure, whether a conclusion is already reached.
> >
> > 1. apt-get install mysql
> > 2. enter mysql client
> > 3. create database test; create table test( test char(10)
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12 2009, Neil Williams wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:16:14 -0500
>> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> * updated Standards-Version (no changes needed)
>
> Firstly, you do not ahve to put that into the changelog, and,
> secondly, one should not have t
On 08/12/2009 03:01 PM, David Claughton wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 12 2009, Neil Williams wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:16:14 -0500
>>> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> * updated Standards-Version (no changes needed)
>> Firstly, you do not ahve to put that into the
Daniel Moerner writes:
> I don't think that anyone was every seriously defending that people do
> uploads just to bump the Standards-Version, I think the objection was
> more that bumping the Standards-Version needlessly clutters the
> changelog and wastes space. I'll admit I don't quite understa
Daniel Moerner wrote:
> On 08/12/2009 03:01 PM, David Claughton wrote:
>> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 12 2009, Neil Williams wrote:
>>>
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:16:14 -0500
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
* updated Standards-Version (no changes needed)
>>> Firstly, you d
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 01:07:33PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
>Any thoughts? We could have such a vote over and done in about two weeks,
>with the DPL's consent, and it'd seem a lot more inclusive and less
>cabal-tastic than how things seem to be working atm...
Personally, I think the last thin
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:17:55PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Quantity of .ddebs:
> Usually there should only be one .ddeb per source. Of course there are
> always exceptions from the rule, so Maintainers may chose to have one
> per binary package. This should only be taken when the size of the
Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:17:55PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> Quantity of .ddebs:
>> Usually there should only be one .ddeb per source. Of course there are
>> always exceptions from the rule, so Maintainers may chose to have one
>> per binary package. This should only be ta
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:44:36PM +0200, Harald Braumann wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:03:30 +0100
> Roger Leigh wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 01:18:12PM +0200, Thomas Koch wrote:
> > > I'm not sure, whether a conclusion is already reached.
> > >
> > > 1. apt-get install mysql
> > > 2.
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort writes:
> Roger Leigh wrote:
>> This fails to address the rather valid concern brought up about having
>> different versions of libraries and binaries installed from the same
>> source package. Having one .ddeb per binary would solve this
>> elegantly.
> Except that in th
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 02:58:45 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> If that bothers you, you can use the share we plan to provide.
>
I'd like to still be able to debug offline, thank you very much. So far
you've avoided answering the question, though: why one ddeb per source
instead of per b
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Emilio Pozuelo Monfort writes:
>> Roger Leigh wrote:
>
>>> This fails to address the rather valid concern brought up about having
>>> different versions of libraries and binaries installed from the same
>>> source package. Having one .ddeb per binary would solve this
>>> el
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 02:58:45AM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Roger Leigh wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:17:55PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> >> Quantity of .ddebs:
> >> Usually there should only be one .ddeb per source. Of course there are
> >> always exceptions from the rule,
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:03:43 +0100
Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:44:36PM +0200, Harald Braumann wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:03:30 +0100
> > Roger Leigh wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 01:18:12PM +0200, Thomas Koch wrote:
> > > > I'm not sure, whether a conclusio
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> Except that in that case, the old library will be NBS and thus I see
>>> no point why you would want to keep it installed. The only reason
>>> would be if it was meant to stay around, but in that case I'm sure the
>>> source package names w
On Wed, Aug 12 2009, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> There will still be a repository with all the .ddebs.
And aptitude and dpkg will know how to install ddebs, somehow?
and synaptic, etc?
> But also we will have a share that will ship all the debugging symbols
> in a build id file hie
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I too am wondering if we should defer the polivy change until
> the details get shaken out with a partial deployment of the scheme.
Full deployment already happened (in Ubuntu).
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
-
Paul Wise writes:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I too am wondering if we should defer the polivy change until
>> the details get shaken out with a partial deployment of the scheme.
> Full deployment already happened (in Ubuntu).
As .ddebs? What's the po
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> As .ddebs? What's the policy about what can go in them and how are they
> integrated with the packaging tools? And could you point me at the Ubuntu
> share for the debugging information so that I can see what protocols it's
> using?
>
> Pri
Paul Wise writes:
> Not having anything to do with Ubuntu, I don't know anything about the
> details, but they have had automatic debug packages and automated
> crash report stuff for quite a while, a couple of years IIRC. The
> specs for that are here:
>
> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/apt-
Le mercredi 12 août 2009 04:59:09, Josselin Mouette a écrit :
> AIUI, this header is here to indicate which version of the policy the
> package is supposed to conform to. This way, we have a way to enforce
> which policy versions are supported, e.g. in a stable release, by
> forbidding the too old
On Wed, Aug 12 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Paul Wise writes:
>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Manoj Srivastava
>> wrote:
>
>>> I too am wondering if we should defer the polivy change until
>>> the details get shaken out with a partial deployment of the scheme.
>
>> Full deployment al
Romain Beauxis writes:
> But there could be another use of this field, which would fit into the
> test- driven workflow. What about a tool that displays the changes in
> the policy based on the declared supported version and the latest
> version ?
Like:
zcat /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/upg
Le mercredi 12 août 2009 23:22:45, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> Romain Beauxis writes:
> > But there could be another use of this field, which would fit into the
> > test- driven workflow. What about a tool that displays the changes in
> > the policy based on the declared supported version and the lat
Russ Allbery (12/08/2009):
> zcat /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist.txt.gz \
> | sed /`grep Standards-Version debian/control | awk '{ print $2 }'`/Q
>
> ? I just use zless on that file and stop reading when I get to the
> current Standards-Version of the package, but t
On Wed, Aug 12 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Paul Wise writes:
>
>> Not having anything to do with Ubuntu, I don't know anything about the
>> details, but they have had automatic debug packages and automated
>> crash report stuff for quite a while, a couple of years IIRC. The
>> specs for that are
Romain Beauxis (12/08/2009):
> Is it foolish to propose this as a lintian check ? "Hey, standards version
> is outdated, here are the changes that ought to be done"
checks/standards-version.desc
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Le Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:44:26PM +0800, Paul Wise a écrit :
>
> IIRC, there is a plan for splitting Descriptions out of the Packages files
For the curious, there is some extra information here:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-l10n-devel/2009-August/000507.html
In my experience,
Le jeudi 13 août 2009 00:09:09, Cyril Brulebois a écrit :
> Romain Beauxis (12/08/2009):
> > Is it foolish to propose this as a lintian check ? "Hey, standards
> > version is outdated, here are the changes that ought to be done"
>
> checks/standards-version.desc
Please, pretty please, try to ma
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> What I mean is that we can use the information contained in the standards-
> version tag and display at this place the list of changes that were done since
> 3.7.0
>
> That makes a difference in the sense that it helps to improve the workflo
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I do not have a strong opinion about this, apart from the fact
>> that it must be present in the sources when someone is looking to
>> update the package, and it should be accessible before downloading all
>> the so
On Thu, Aug 13 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:44:26PM +0800, Paul Wise a écrit :
>>
>> IIRC, there is a plan for splitting Descriptions out of the Packages files
>
> For the curious, there is some extra information here:
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-
On Thu, Aug 13 2009, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> What I mean is that we can use the information contained in the
> standards- version tag and display at this place the list of changes
> that were done since> 3.7.0
Assuming you have the policy package installed.
> That makes a difference in
Le jeudi 13 août 2009 00:31:40, Paul Wise a écrit :
> Please file a bug (and patch) against lintian, I doubt the lintian
> maintainers would have a problem with this as long as it is
> implemented sanely.
Ok. Are the .desc files processed in any way ?
I looked at lintian's source and could find an
Le jeudi 13 août 2009 01:13:44, Romain Beauxis a écrit :
> Le jeudi 13 août 2009 00:31:40, Paul Wise a écrit :
> > Please file a bug (and patch) against lintian, I doubt the lintian
> > maintainers would have a problem with this as long as it is
> > implemented sanely.
>
> Ok. Are the .desc files p
Le jeudi 13 août 2009 00:48:13, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> > That makes a difference in the sense that it helps to improve the
> > workflow by putting as much information as possible in the same place.
>
> Oh, for Pete's sake, just run zless on the file lintian already
> reports for you.
87 matches
Mail list logo
