Re: libc6_2.0.7 release notes...

1998-06-23 Thread Jules Bean
--On Tue, Jun 23, 1998 2:59 pm -0400 "Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Anyway, this is obviously somewhat of a religious issue, and having >> said that I whole heartedly agree with Manoj (that there are *zero* >> technical arguments against epochs), I will now shut up and ignore >> this

Re: Please follow protocol when you announce your Intents to package

1998-06-23 Thread Jules Bean
--On Tue, Jun 23, 1998 6:47 pm +0100 "Adrian Bridgett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 10:36:11PM -0400, Shaleh wrote: >> I have seen numerous people post Intentions to package apps that are >> already being worked on. Please read the wnpp (it is made for a >> reason). And

Re: Summary[2]: dpkg and alpha/beta versioning

1998-06-23 Thread Raul Miller
"Yann" == Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Yann> Needed: Some technical info about why people consider epochs as bad. > Yann> It seems most arguments only used aesthetic reasons. Please someone > Yann> correct me if I'm wrong. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You'd

Re: Summary[2]: dpkg and alpha/beta versioning

1998-06-23 Thread Manoj Srivastava
Hi, >>"Yann" == Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Yann> Needed: Some technical info about why people consider epochs as bad. Yann> It seems most arguments only used aesthetic reasons. Please someone Yann> correct me if I'm wrong. You'd be hard pressed to find any. One possible r

Re: Summary[2]: dpkg and alpha/beta versioning

1998-06-23 Thread Hamish Moffatt
Excellent summary, thanks Yann. On Tue, Jun 23, 1998 at 12:44:55PM +0200, Yann Dirson wrote: > Con: against the current Packaging Manual's guidelines (section 5): > "Note that the purpose of epochs is to allow us to leave behind > mistakes in version numbering, and to cope with situations where th

Summary[2]: dpkg and alpha/beta versioning

1998-06-23 Thread Yann Dirson
Recent changes: === * The 2.0.7-0pre1 scheme * The .99. example * Comment by <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> about epochs being bad * The 2.0.7r example - comment about it being IMHO bad * Jason's "Assigning meanings to words" scheme. * Added my `~[0-9]*' extension to Gregory's `~'. Context: ===

Re: Summary: dpkg and alpha/beta versioning

1998-06-23 Thread Yann Dirson
Giuliano P Procida writes: > Having just re-read the section in the packaging manual, I note that > dpkg does not chop version numbers by '.' but into non-numeric and > numeric components [/usr/doc/dpkg/packaging.html/ch-versions.html]. > I would have thought that alpha < beta < gamma < pre (

Re: Bug#23000: no way to force deliver over procmail

1998-06-23 Thread Gregory S. Stark
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There seem to me to be two issues here: > > 1. Herbert Xu claims the default configuration is unsuitable for his > use. I think this is a non-bug; if a user wants to mess around with > the configuration in ways like this they should not be surprised if

Re: Provides: emacsen ?

1998-06-23 Thread Manoj Srivastava
Hi, May I point out that pkg-order is probqably way overkill for this, and you just need to find a way to feed the information to, say, tsort? Of course, that makes emacsen-common kinda depend on bsdmainutils, but since pkg-order depends on it too that is not so bad. So, each

Re: Provides: emacsen ?

1998-06-23 Thread Rob Browning
Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Manoj, do you have a list of these packages handy? If so, could you > file a bug, or send me the list so I can? I believe this is broken. > Nothing should depend on emacsen-common, only emacsen. Ok, now I'm not so sure about what's the proper dependenc