ÎÒÕæ³ÏµØÏòÄúÍƼöÒ»¸ö¼ÈÄܹºÎïÓÖÄÜ°ïÄú׬ǮµÄÍøÕ¾!
ÊÇÕæÊǼÙ,Äú¿´Á˾ÍÖªµÀÁË£º
http://www.dirshop.com/mall/index.php?user=luckboy
(»òhttp://www.dirgame.com/mall/index.php?user=luckboy)
µ«Ô¸ÎÒÄܸøÄú´øÀ´ºÃÔË!
On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 07:46:49PM +0400, Alte wrote:
> But I ran into problems loading dpkg database. They are as follows:
> 1. Great deal of packages have no $package.md5sums file
> 2. In one package there are files in $package.md5sums that are not
> listed in $package.list
md5sums files aren't
Hi!
I'm creating a piece of software that should analyze integrity of
filesystem relative to dpkg database (or integriry of dpkg database
relative to filesystem if you like ;)
But I ran into problems loading dpkg database. They are as follows:
1. Great deal of packages have no $package.md5sums fi
On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 10:09:00AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
>
> But to answer your specific question, I don't see it as a big deal if
> you ship unstripped binaries in a package in unstable for a while. I
> think the important part is providing stripped binaries for sarge; so
> just be sure to
ÎÒÕæ³ÏµØÏòÄúÍƼöÒ»¸ö¼ÈÄܹºÎïÓÖÄÜ°ïÄú׬ǮµÄÍøÕ¾!
ÊÇÕæÊǼÙ,Äú¿´Á˾ÍÖªµÀÁË£º
http://www.dirshop.com/mall/index.php?user=luckboy
(»òhttp://www.dirgame.com/mall/index.php?user=luckboy)
µ«Ô¸ÎÒÄܸøÄú´øÀ´ºÃÔË!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Conta
On Sat, 2002-10-12 at 23:19, Drew Parsons wrote:
> Why does policy ask us to strip binaries anyway? Is it merely to reduce
> storage and bandwidth costs?
Right. I think there will be a point in the future (probably 2-3 years
away at least though) though where we can just default to shipping
uns
On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 10:30:35AM +0200, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
>
> > Could someone please clarify if it's appropriate to respect upstream's
> > wishes to leave the symbols in?
>
> Sure. It's only a "should" in policy, not a "must", so it's ok not to
> strip.
>
OK, I guess I'll pack 'em back in
On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 07:46:49PM +0400, Alte wrote:
> But I ran into problems loading dpkg database. They are as follows:
> 1. Great deal of packages have no $package.md5sums file
> 2. In one package there are files in $package.md5sums that are not
> listed in $package.list
md5sums files aren't
Hi!
I'm creating a piece of software that should analyze integrity of
filesystem relative to dpkg database (or integriry of dpkg database
relative to filesystem if you like ;)
But I ran into problems loading dpkg database. They are as follows:
1. Great deal of packages have no $package.md5sums f
On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 10:09:00AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
>
> But to answer your specific question, I don't see it as a big deal if
> you ship unstripped binaries in a package in unstable for a while. I
> think the important part is providing stripped binaries for sarge; so
> just be sure t
On Sat, 2002-10-12 at 23:19, Drew Parsons wrote:
> Why does policy ask us to strip binaries anyway? Is it merely to reduce
> storage and bandwidth costs?
Right. I think there will be a point in the future (probably 2-3 years
away at least though) though where we can just default to shipping
un
On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 10:30:35AM +0200, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
>
> > Could someone please clarify if it's appropriate to respect upstream's
> > wishes to leave the symbols in?
>
> Sure. It's only a "should" in policy, not a "must", so it's ok not to
> strip.
>
OK, I guess I'll pack 'em back in
Drew Parsons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
>
> Could someone please clarify if it's appropriate to respect upstream's
> wishes to leave the symbols in?
Why you not provide a -dbg version of your package? If someone has an
error and want to report this, he can install the -dbg version to get
non st
Drew Parsons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
>
> Could someone please clarify if it's appropriate to respect upstream's
> wishes to leave the symbols in?
Why you not provide a -dbg version of your package? If someone has an
error and want to report this, he can install the -dbg version to get
non st
Hi Drew!
You wrote:
> Why does policy ask us to strip binaries anyway? Is it merely to reduce
> storage and bandwidth costs?
Yes, afaik this is the only reason.
> Could someone please clarify if it's appropriate to respect upstream's
> wishes to leave the symbols in?
Sure. It's only a "should
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
I'd like to take another shot at getting libxmlsec into Debian (bug
#152605). I'm looking for someone to sponsor the following:
~http://memebeam.org/john/tests/libxmlsec/woody/libxmlsec_0.0.9-1.dsc
This time no dependent package NMU's a
Hi Drew!
You wrote:
> Why does policy ask us to strip binaries anyway? Is it merely to reduce
> storage and bandwidth costs?
Yes, afaik this is the only reason.
> Could someone please clarify if it's appropriate to respect upstream's
> wishes to leave the symbols in?
Sure. It's only a "should
17 matches
Mail list logo
