Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 16-Oct-2005, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > Oh my god, give the guy a break!
>
> We are. He's come here asking for feedback on his package; we're
> informing him of acceptable style.
Actually, he was asking for a sponsored upload, not feedback on his
pack
On Sun, Oct 16, 2005 at 05:00:01PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 09:48:26PM +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
> > You can remove the transition package now; upgrades skipping a stable
> > release are not supported.
> Interesting, is this policy or just common practice in pa
On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 01:16:19PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Bastian Venthur wrote:
> > I when I upload a new version of my package to debian, will the
> > *whole* changelog parsed for fixed bugs, or just the last changelog
> > entry?
> All changelog entries in the .changes. Use -vVERsion wit
On 16-Oct-2005, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Oh my god, give the guy a break!
We are. He's come here asking for feedback on his package; we're
informing him of acceptable style.
> If this offends you, then make it into policy! Debian is not a
> police state!
Policy is also advisory. No-one is for
Ricardo Mones wrote:
>
>> I have lots of commented-out debhelper lines which sometimes later get
>> used when upstream does add a relevant file.
>>
>> If you like things all prim and proper, that's fine, but please don't
>> impose it on others.
>
> I think the one who should take a break is
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 13:53:11 -0400
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ricardo Mones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 14:21:06 +0200
> > Bastian Venthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > The difference in *bytes* is exactly 338 -- this is ~5-10 times smaller
> >
Christoph Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 15 October 2005 22:47, Bastian Venthur wrote:
> > Hmm, this is rather cosmetical, isn't it?
>
> Mostly. But the template is merely there as a superset of things you could
> possibly need. It doesn't do any harm to leave it in there. And I d
Ricardo Mones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 14:21:06 +0200
> Bastian Venthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The difference in *bytes* is exactly 338 -- this is ~5-10 times smaller
> > than the size of *one* single cursor contained in this package.
>
> Your package being bi
Christoph Haas wrote:
> On Saturday 15 October 2005 22:47, Bastian Venthur wrote:
>> > - a lot of commented-out debhelper calls in debian/rules
>>
>> Hmm, this is rather cosmetical, isn't it?
>
> Mostly. But the template is merely there as a superset of things you could
> possibly need. It doesn'
On Saturday 15 October 2005 22:47, Bastian Venthur wrote:
> Christoph Haas wrote:
> > On Saturday 15 October 2005 14:59, Bastian Venthur wrote:
> >> I'm searching for sponsorship of my packages:
> >>
> >> crystalcursors
> >> + http://packages.qa.debian.org/c/crystalcursors.html
> >> + http://vent
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 14:21:06 +0200
Bastian Venthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The difference in *bytes* is exactly 338 -- this is ~5-10 times smaller
> than the size of *one* single cursor contained in this package.
Your package being big is no excuse to make it bigger without need to,
better
On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 09:48:26PM +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
> You can remove the transition package now; upgrades skipping a stable
> release are not supported.
Interesting, is this policy or just common practice in past releases?
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny
Ricardo Mones wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 22:47:26 +0200
> Bastian Venthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > - a lot of commented-out debhelper calls in debian/rules
>>
>> Hmm, this is rather cosmetical, isn't it?
>
> Is not only cosmetics, is also disk space and bandwidth for holding
> usel
On 15-Oct-2005, Bastian Venthur wrote:
> Christoph Haas wrote:
> > - a lot of commented-out debhelper calls in debian/rules
>
> Hmm, this is rather cosmetical, isn't it?
It's poor style, which more than cosmetics is also distraction and a
waste of every reader's time. There is no downside to re
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 22:47:26 +0200
Bastian Venthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - a lot of commented-out debhelper calls in debian/rules
>
> Hmm, this is rather cosmetical, isn't it?
Is not only cosmetics, is also disk space and bandwidth for holding
useless stuff.
--
Ricardo Mones
~
15 matches
Mail list logo