On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 12:01 +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 04:53:50PM -0700, Al Stone wrote:
>
> If it were my package, I'd make the judgement call to still call the source
> package acovea, name the source tarball acovea_5.1.1.orig.tar.gz, and build
&
ng and
re-reading Policy and such :(. The answers are probably staring me
in the face, too
Thanks in advance for any recommendations.
[1] http://packages.qa.debian.org/a/acovea.html
[2] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=337604
--
Ciao,
al
possible).
Other DD's I've talked to prefer the looser restrictions
that seem to allow for a broader range of use cases.
What say the mentors? Should I force the dependencies?
Should I gamble on the users knowing what to do (with
proper README.Debian entries, of course)?
Thanks in advance.
--
Ciao,
al
Al Stone
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
possible).
Other DD's I've talked to prefer the looser restrictions
that seem to allow for a broader range of use cases.
What say the mentors? Should I force the dependencies?
Should I gamble on the users knowing what to do (with
proper README.Debian entrie
es
so that the build fails if these things are
not present; that'll be done. But, I just
haven't been able to find anything that tells
me what sort of build environment I can rely
on. Have I just not looked in the right place?
TIA.
--
Ciao,
al
----
Al Stone
L
es
so that the build fails if these things are
not present; that'll be done. But, I just
haven't been able to find anything that tells
me what sort of build environment I can rely
on. Have I just not looked in the right place?
TIA.
--
Ciao,
al
----
Al Stone
Linux &am
6 matches
Mail list logo
