On Fri, Nov 06, 1998 at 11:04:56PM +, James Troup wrote:
> Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Erhm, because the Hurd does use a different source package/version?
>
> So? So do glibc2.1 based architectures and they still use the same
> binary names.
Could you be so kind and e
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Erhm, because the Hurd does use a different source package/version?
So? So do glibc2.1 based architectures and they still use the same
binary names.
--
James
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> Other than that, if pkg-doc wants to stick its stuff in /usr/doc/pkg
Raul> and provide a symlink at /usr/doc/pkg-doc, I see no major technical
Raul> issues.
So, where does the copyright for the doc package go?
manoj
On Fri, Nov 06, 1998 at 11:50:01AM +, James Troup wrote:
> Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > But I'm still in doubt about the need of a depends line at all.
>
> I'm not.
Santiago,
this is no big deal. We can easily make glib2-dev provide libc6-dev. This
solves this temporary p
> If pkg and pkg-doc provide the same files they'll have to conflict.
[I'm implicitly assuming that all packages must provide a copyright file.
I don't think that aspect of policy is being considered for change here.]
--
Raul
Federico Di Gregorio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree. I know policy requires *every* package to have /usr/doc/
> but why can't -doc packages be an exception and put the docs in
> /usr/doc/ and not in /usr/doc/-doc?
If pkg and pkg-doc provide the same files they'll have to conflict.
Other tha
On Fri, Nov 06, 1998 at 02:07:18PM -0500, Avery Pennarun wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 06, 1998 at 07:58:25PM +, David Rocher wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 06, 1998 at 11:33:39AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > As a user I prefer that /usr/doc/-doc be a link to
> > > /usr/doc/, then the extra docs fall unde
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But I'm still in doubt about the need of a depends line at all.
I'm not.
> To compile *anything*, you will need libc6-dev anyway,
Not necessarily, prior to the C-ified dependency generator, the kernel
was self-contained enough (obviously using only m
Shaleh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If the user has the libfoo-dev and libfoo installed, how can they
> get out of sync? If you upload a new libfoo, a new libfoo-dev
> should accompany it.
Of course, but nothing forces the user to update them at the same
time.
> Just wondering if this is with
>
> To compile *anything*, you will need libc6-dev anyway, so what is the
> purpose of libfoo-dev depending on libc6-dev?
Most people don't compile things. So the depends is to ensure they have the
right environment.
On Fri, Nov 06, 1998 at 11:54:35AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> To compile *anything*, you will need libc6-dev anyway, so what is the
> purpose of libfoo-dev depending on libc6-dev?
altgcc?
Zephaniah E, Hull.
>
> --
> "691db1ffb2205a0f7be10e5db4f7b082" (a truly random sig)
>
>
> --
> To
On Fri, 6 Nov 1998, Shaleh wrote:
> > So: It is ok that a package depends on libc6-dev in a hardcoded way,
> > should that package depend on "libc-dev" instead, or is there (or
> > should be) any other way to do this in an elegant way?
>
> Santiago, my understanding is that -dev depends is on the
>
> So: It is ok that a package depends on libc6-dev in a hardcoded way,
> should that package depend on "libc-dev" instead, or is there (or
> should be) any other way to do this in an elegant way?
>
Santiago, my understanding is that -dev depends is on the wishlist. There is
no equivalent for
If the user has the libfoo-dev and libfoo installed, how can they get out of
sync? If you upload a new libfoo, a new libfoo-dev should accompany it.
Just wondering if this is within policy's realm.
14 matches
Mail list logo
