[Manoj - sorry about the extra message in your inbox. Forgot to send it to
the list the first time around]
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> If we agree that the packaging manual has the weight of
> Policy,
Currently it does not. Someone needs to go over it with a fine-toothed comb
to pick out non-
Hi there...
What about people who are not debian developers but who want to make local
debian packages? (forexample: admin folx who want to document/package THEIR
policy w/o being tied to debian policy: we all KNOW that these will/do exist)
(Note in general: I think some debian practices go again
There is _no way_ you will get people to comply 100% with policy. In
particular the FHS will be a problem (mostly with packages installing into
/opt).
Another item of note is user/group allocation.
Adrian
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.poboxes.com/adrian.bridgett
Windows NT - Unix in bet
Package: packaging-manual
Version: 2.5.0.0
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
[Robert Woodcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> points out that the Packaging
manual states that it is not policy]
In that case, I think I do owe Wichert an aopology. I think I
would like to change those paragraphs to the followi
Hi,
Iff we agree that the packaging manual has the weight of
Policy, I propose, as a purely packaging issue, to pull the two
packages (not the documents -- the policy and the packaging manuals
shall remain distinct documents). The policy manual package already
contains the FSSTND docu
Hi,
>>"Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Wichert> I tried to find a place where that is mentioned, since this
Wichert> I had never heard before the packaging manual is policy.
This issue was discussed here on the mailing list, around the
time I was trying to revi
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Wichert> Packaging manual isn't policy. I don't see any reason why a
> Wichert> shell script should not be used for very simply packages..
>
> Packaging manual is too policy. The rationale for that has
> been lost in the mists of time, but this is something that is a
Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Such a blatant violation of policy was not what I expected
> from someone who is trying to be DPL. If you do indeed do so, that
> package shall immediately draw a bug report.
Relax, I never said I would upload that package to Debian. I have lots
of pack
Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Packaging manual is too policy. The rationale for that has
> been lost in the mists of time, but this is something that is already
> policy; please float a move to get it changed if you do not like it.
I tried to find a place where that is mentioned, sinc
Previously Richard Braakman wrote:
> I disagree with this proposal. Packages in contrib and non-free
> should be able to depend on packages that we can't or won't distribute
> for whatever reason.
Why would we want to define relations within Debian packages to packages
that don't exist as far as
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The only drawback I can see: If you do cross compilation, you can't easily
> run "debian/rules target" and expect it to work. You'd need to set the
> variables correctly.
That's already the case, even before your proposal.
> Currently, cross compila
Every week or two, somebody says "we need source dependencies."
I don't have a proposal to present on how it should be done, but
it doesn't seem like it should be too hard.
The control file would need a new field Source-Depends.
This might be propagated to the .dsc file. When a source package is u
Hi,
>>"Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Wichert> Previously Richard Braakman wrote:
>> It does. Packaging Manual, section 3.2.1, says that debian/rules
>> is an executable makefile that starts with the string `#!/usr/bin/make -f'.
Wichert> Packaging manual isn't polic
Hi,
>>"Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Wichert> Wichert. (who has decided to create a package where
Wichert> debian/rules is a sh-script someday just for fun)
Such a blatant violation of policy was not what I expected
from someone who is trying to be DPL. If yo
Previously Jules Bean wrote:
> The ability to invoke debian/rules by hand is not really a
> 'technical advantage', though convenient.
It is an advantage: I do "debian/rules binary" by hand quite a lot in
testing packages, and only run dpkg-buildpackage on the final result.
For some package I only
Previously Richard Braakman wrote:
> It does. Packaging Manual, section 3.2.1, says that debian/rules
> is an executable makefile that starts with the string `#!/usr/bin/make -f'.
Packaging manual isn't policy. I don't see any reason why a shell script
should not be used for very simply packages.
On 08-Jan-99 Jules Bean wrote:
> Of course, they might not want to be a debian developer.
>
> Note that, currently, to be a debian developer you have to agree with the
> DFSG. Commercial developers might well not..
>
> Perhaps we could afford them a quasi-developer status. Alternatively,
> the
17 matches
Mail list logo
