Package: debian-policy
Version: current
Severity: wishlist
Hello,
to support the Hurd, and to make it possible to support cross compilation, I
propose the following changes to the Packaging Manual. I attach a set of
diff files against some package building scripts and a new script
`dpkg-architect
On Thu, 14 Jan 1999, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Bug#30036: debian-policy could include emacs
> policy"):
> > Hi,
> > >>"Adam" == Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Adam> I still don't really understand what is intended by moving
> > Adam> sub-policies in
On Thu, 14 Jan 1999, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Santiago Vila writes ("Bug#29770: Policy contradicts itself about
> /etc/aliases"):
> ...
> > Policy says:
> >
> > "A package may not modify a configuration file of another package."
>
> Why don't we change this to:
>
> A package may not modify a con
On Wed, 13 Jan 1999, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
> > Previously Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > Example: There is no pine.deb but a pinepgp package should be
> > > allowed to depend on it.
> >
> > Okay, that sounds reasonable. How about only doing this for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > If all packages that "Suggests:" hugs should explicitly name
> > > "non-free/hugs" then they will have to change when hugs moves.
> >
> > Oh, I thought you were talking about "Enhances:".
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Enhances:"
Raul Miller:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If all packages that "Suggests:" hugs should explicitly name
> > "non-free/hugs" then they will have to change when hugs moves.
>
> Oh, I thought you were talking about "Enhances:".
>
> Yes, I agree, Suggests: of the form "non-free/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If all packages that "Suggests:" hugs should explicitly name
> "non-free/hugs" then they will have to change when hugs moves.
Oh, I thought you were talking about "Enhances:".
Yes, I agree, Suggests: of the form "non-free/foo" (where foo
is a meta-sy
I wrote:
> I don't see the need for this. On the contrary it may create problems as
> packages *move* from non-free to free (like KDE will, maybe, have done)
> and that would create inconsistencies which we shouls avoid at all costs!
Raul Miller asks:
> What inconsistencies?
I like to believe t
8 matches
Mail list logo
