El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 15:44, Gunnar Wolf escribe:
> It is mandatory. Stable is stable is stable, and it is not meant to be
> modified unless necessary (this means, unless there is a vulnerability
> or a grave functionality bug). All development is made in unstable - If
> you up
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
> > El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 14:27, Andreas Barth escribe:
> > What about, having the choice of building against both the stable and
> > the unstable version of a library, choosing the s
El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 15:44, Gunnar Wolf escribe:
> It is mandatory. Stable is stable is stable, and it is not meant to be
> modified unless necessary (this means, unless there is a vulnerability
> or a grave functionality bug). All development is made in unstable - If
> you up
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
> > El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 14:27, Andreas Barth escribe:
> > What about, having the choice of building against both the stable and
> > the unstable version of a library, choosing the s
El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 15:44, Gunnar Wolf escribe:
> It is mandatory. Stable is stable is stable, and it is not meant to be
> modified unless necessary (this means, unless there is a vulnerability
> or a grave functionality bug). All development is made in unstable - If
> you up
El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 15:44, Gunnar Wolf escribe:
> It is mandatory. Stable is stable is stable, and it is not meant to be
> modified unless necessary (this means, unless there is a vulnerability
> or a grave functionality bug). All development is made in unstable - If
> you up
Ismael Valladolid Torres dijo [Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 12:54:18PM +0200]:
> Is it in some way "mandatory" using sid as the developing and
> packaging environment?
>
> I usually have stable installed, and even have built some simple
> packages against stable dependencies. Wouldn't they have a chance o
Ismael Valladolid Torres dijo [Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 12:54:18PM +0200]:
> Is it in some way "mandatory" using sid as the developing and
> packaging environment?
>
> I usually have stable installed, and even have built some simple
> packages against stable dependencies. Wouldn't they have a chance o
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 06:33:01PM +0200, Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
> El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 14:27, Andreas Barth escribe:
> > With a sid build environment you're always on the safe side.
>
> What about, having the choice of building against both the stable and
> the unst
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 06:33:01PM +0200, Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
> El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 14:27, Andreas Barth escribe:
> > With a sid build environment you're always on the safe side.
>
> What about, having the choice of building against both the stable and
> the unst
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
> El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 14:27, Andreas Barth escribe:
> > With a sid build environment you're always on the safe side.
>
> What about, having the choice of building against both the stable and
> the unstable version of a libr
* Ismael Valladolid Torres ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 18:35]:
> El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 14:27, Andreas Barth escribe:
> > With a sid build environment you're always on the safe side.
> What about, having the choice of building against both the stable and
> the unstable version
* Ismael Valladolid Torres ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 18:35]:
> I usually backport packages from unstable. Some of them seem to have
> been packaged using woody, some of them seem to have been packaged
> using sid. For those in the first group, a simple apt-get build-dep
> satisfies build dependen
El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 14:27, Andreas Barth escribe:
> With a sid build environment you're always on the safe side.
What about, having the choice of building against both the stable and
the unstable version of a library, choosing the stable version would
not make the path of th
El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 14:10, Santiago Vila escribe:
> They should be buildable under sid, yes, but there is no requirement
> anywhere that they are actually built under sid. What is really
> "mandatory" is that uploaded packages have the dependencies and
> build-dependencies wh
El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 13:05, Andreas Barth escribe:
> Normally packages are uploaded to sid. So, they must be build on sid.
Packages must be uploaded to sid. So, they normally are built on sid.
This makes more sense to me.
I usually backport packages from unstable. Some of t
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 06:33:01PM +0200, Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
> El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 14:27, Andreas Barth escribe:
> > With a sid build environment you're always on the safe side.
>
> What about, having the choice of building against both the stable and
> the unst
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 06:33:01PM +0200, Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
> El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 14:27, Andreas Barth escribe:
> > With a sid build environment you're always on the safe side.
>
> What about, having the choice of building against both the stable and
> the unst
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
> El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 14:27, Andreas Barth escribe:
> > With a sid build environment you're always on the safe side.
>
> What about, having the choice of building against both the stable and
> the unstable version of a libr
* Ismael Valladolid Torres ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 18:35]:
> El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 14:27, Andreas Barth escribe:
> > With a sid build environment you're always on the safe side.
> What about, having the choice of building against both the stable and
> the unstable version
* Ismael Valladolid Torres ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 18:35]:
> I usually backport packages from unstable. Some of them seem to have
> been packaged using woody, some of them seem to have been packaged
> using sid. For those in the first group, a simple apt-get build-dep
> satisfies build dependen
El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 14:27, Andreas Barth escribe:
> With a sid build environment you're always on the safe side.
What about, having the choice of building against both the stable and
the unstable version of a library, choosing the stable version would
not make the path of th
El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 14:10, Santiago Vila escribe:
> They should be buildable under sid, yes, but there is no requirement
> anywhere that they are actually built under sid. What is really
> "mandatory" is that uploaded packages have the dependencies and
> build-dependencies wh
El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 13:05, Andreas Barth escribe:
> Normally packages are uploaded to sid. So, they must be build on sid.
Packages must be uploaded to sid. So, they normally are built on sid.
This makes more sense to me.
I usually backport packages from unstable. Some of t
* Santiago Vila ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 14:20]:
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Normally packages are uploaded to sid. So, they must be build on sid.
> They should be buildable under sid, yes, but there is no requirement
> anywhere [...]
>
> Whether this means you need a sid e
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Ismael Valladolid Torres ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 12:58]:
> > Is it in some way "mandatory" using sid as the developing and
> > packaging environment?
> >
> > I usually have stable installed, and even have built some simple
> > packages against stabl
* Ismael Valladolid Torres ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 12:58]:
> Is it in some way "mandatory" using sid as the developing and
> packaging environment?
>
> I usually have stable installed, and even have built some simple
> packages against stable dependencies. Wouldn't they have a chance of
> gett
El jueves, 4 de septiembre de 2003, a las 17:54, Matthew Palmer escribe:
> I'd appreciate comments and more questions and answers.
While reading the FAQ I find:
> 3. Put a package together, built against a current version of sid.
Is it in some way "mandatory" using sid as the developing and
pac
* Santiago Vila ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 14:20]:
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Normally packages are uploaded to sid. So, they must be build on sid.
> They should be buildable under sid, yes, but there is no requirement
> anywhere [...]
>
> Whether this means you need a sid e
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Ismael Valladolid Torres ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 12:58]:
> > Is it in some way "mandatory" using sid as the developing and
> > packaging environment?
> >
> > I usually have stable installed, and even have built some simple
> > packages against stabl
* Ismael Valladolid Torres ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 12:58]:
> Is it in some way "mandatory" using sid as the developing and
> packaging environment?
>
> I usually have stable installed, and even have built some simple
> packages against stable dependencies. Wouldn't they have a chance of
> gett
El jueves, 4 de septiembre de 2003, a las 17:54, Matthew Palmer escribe:
> I'd appreciate comments and more questions and answers.
While reading the FAQ I find:
> 3. Put a package together, built against a current version of sid.
Is it in some way "mandatory" using sid as the developing and
pac
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 05:48:28PM +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
> I then went to the Mentors FAQ, searched for "source" and found nothing.
> Upon close inspection, your statement is clear, but I'd change it:
>
> > # Provide a publically accessible place where all of the files
> > (.orig.tar.gz, di
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 05:48:28PM +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
> I then went to the Mentors FAQ, searched for "source" and found nothing.
> Upon close inspection, your statement is clear, but I'd change it:
>
> > # Provide a publically accessible place where all of the files
> > (.orig.tar.gz, di
Re: Re: FAQ for debian-mentors [Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mon, Sep
08, 2003 at 02:19:26PM +1000, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> > You have to stress that people actually upload the _source_ package. If
> > not told, they tend to provide i386 binaries.
>
> Is &
Re: Re: FAQ for debian-mentors [Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mon, Sep 08, 2003
at 02:19:26PM +1000, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> > You have to stress that people actually upload the _source_ package. If
> > not told, they tend to provide i386 binaries.
>
> Is &
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 01:03:46PM +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: Re: FAQ for debian-mentors [Joe Nahmias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Thu, Sep 04,
> 2003 at 10:49:09AM -0400, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> > 4) Same section, there should be a step 3.5 which says something
>
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 04:44:10PM -0500, Michael Schultheiss wrote:
> Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > To facilitate that, I've put an explicit licence notice at the bottom of the
> > page if someone wants to incorporate it into another Debian document
> > (alternate licencing can be arranged if needed).
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 01:03:46PM +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: Re: FAQ for debian-mentors [Joe Nahmias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Thu, Sep 04, 2003
> at 10:49:09AM -0400, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> > 4) Same section, there should be a step 3.5 which says something
>
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 04:44:10PM -0500, Michael Schultheiss wrote:
> Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > To facilitate that, I've put an explicit licence notice at the bottom of the
> > page if someone wants to incorporate it into another Debian document
> > (alternate licencing can be arranged if needed).
Re: Re: FAQ for debian-mentors [Joe Nahmias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Thu, Sep 04,
2003 at 10:49:09AM -0400, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> 4) Same section, there should be a step 3.5 which says something
> like: "Upload the source package to machine for public review,
> mentors.deb
Re: Re: FAQ for debian-mentors [Joe Nahmias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at
10:49:09AM -0400, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> 4) Same section, there should be a step 3.5 which says something
> like: "Upload the source package to machine for public review,
> mentors.deb
Matthew Palmer wrote:
> To facilitate that, I've put an explicit licence notice at the bottom of the
> page if someone wants to incorporate it into another Debian document
> (alternate licencing can be arranged if needed).
The GPL is the GNU General Public License. There is no "GNU Public
License
Matthew Palmer wrote:
> To facilitate that, I've put an explicit licence notice at the bottom of the
> page if someone wants to incorporate it into another Debian document
> (alternate licencing can be arranged if needed).
The GPL is the GNU General Public License. There is no "GNU Public
License
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 07:24:15PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 05:54:49PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > OK, having watched the same questions come past regularly, I've finally
> > bitten the bullet and put a bit of a FAQ together for this list. I'd
> > appreciate comm
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 05:54:49PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> OK, having watched the same questions come past regularly, I've finally
> bitten the bullet and put a bit of a FAQ together for this list. I'd
> appreciate comments and more questions and answers.
>
> http://people.debian.org/~mpa
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 07:24:15PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 05:54:49PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > OK, having watched the same questions come past regularly, I've finally
> > bitten the bullet and put a bit of a FAQ together for this list. I'd
> > appreciate comm
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 05:54:49PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> OK, having watched the same questions come past regularly, I've finally
> bitten the bullet and put a bit of a FAQ together for this list. I'd
> appreciate comments and more questions and answers.
>
> http://people.debian.org/~mpa
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 10:49:09AM -0400, Joe Nahmias wrote:
> 0) In the "General questions" section, you should mention the
> #debian-mentors IRC channel. I know there aren't alot of ppl there,
> but at times I have found it to be quite handy.
Which IRC network is that on?
> 5) In the "Where el
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Palmer wrote:
> OK, having watched the same questions come past regularly, I've finally
> bitten the bullet and put a bit of a FAQ together for this list. I'd
> appreciate comments and more questions and answers.
>
> http://people.debian.org/
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 11:06:20PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 10:52:39AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 05:54:49PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > OK, having watched the same questions come past regularly, I've finally
> > > bitten the bulle
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 10:49:09AM -0400, Joe Nahmias wrote:
> 0) In the "General questions" section, you should mention the
> #debian-mentors IRC channel. I know there aren't alot of ppl there,
> but at times I have found it to be quite handy.
Which IRC network is that on?
> 5) In the "Where el
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 10:52:39AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 05:54:49PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > OK, having watched the same questions come past regularly, I've finally
> > bitten the bullet and put a bit of a FAQ together for this list. I'd
> > appreciate com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Palmer wrote:
> OK, having watched the same questions come past regularly, I've finally
> bitten the bullet and put a bit of a FAQ together for this list. I'd
> appreciate comments and more questions and answers.
>
> http://people.debian.org/
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 11:06:20PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 10:52:39AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 05:54:49PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > OK, having watched the same questions come past regularly, I've finally
> > > bitten the bulle
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 10:52:39AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 05:54:49PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > OK, having watched the same questions come past regularly, I've finally
> > bitten the bullet and put a bit of a FAQ together for this list. I'd
> > appreciate com
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 05:54:49PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> OK, having watched the same questions come past regularly, I've finally
> bitten the bullet and put a bit of a FAQ together for this list. I'd
> appreciate comments and more questions and answers.
> http://people.debian.org/~mpalme
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 05:54:49PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> OK, having watched the same questions come past regularly, I've finally
> bitten the bullet and put a bit of a FAQ together for this list. I'd
> appreciate comments and more questions and answers.
> http://people.debian.org/~mpalme
58 matches
Mail list logo
