Package: debian-policy
Version: 2.5.0.0
In /usr/doc/debian-policy/policy.html/ch2.html it says:
Packages may not depend on packages with lower priority values. If this
should happen, one of the priority values will have to be adapted.
I think this is unclear. Especially the second sentence
* EB => Edward Betts
EB> A true Stallmanist, what a beautiful thing.
Are you arguing the WWF should protect me and people like me from
extinction? :-)
What do you meant in that other message, where you quote the Social
Contract?
In case of doubt, please check what I think of the very same p
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is a bizarre interpretation. If it unpacks to the same code (such
> that "diff -r" produces no output), it's effectively the same source.
> Who cares about the packaging? (Yes, I understand that it screws
> up md5sums/whatevers on the archive. So
On 12 Jun 1999, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Jason, I hadn't read back on all this discussion. I caught up a bit
> more. Sorry to have you hash this out again.
Oh thats OK, with any luck it has made things clearer for everyone :>
> However, I personally would weigh in, in the case of an upstream
>
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
> > A reccommendation would be fine. Perhaps it'd be more suited to go in the
> > developers reference than in policy?
> Yes.
>
> It is not needed that whatever we write about this is "normative", I just
> would li
On 12-Jun-99, 00:35 (CDT), Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I like to consider the source code (.c files, etc) and it's transfer
> > encoding (.tar.gz) to be seperate. if you repack it, or recompress it, all
> > you are doing is changing th
Jason, I hadn't read back on all this discussion. I caught up a bit
more. Sorry to have you hash this out again.
I think your definitions and goals are good and useful.
However, I personally would weigh in, in the case of an upstream
.tar.gz file which dpkg-source can handle and doesn't have o
On 12 Jun 1999, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> > I like to consider the source code (.c files, etc) and it's transfer
> > encoding (.tar.gz) to be seperate. if you repack it, or recompress it, all
> > you are doing is changing the way it is delivered not what is being
> > delivered which is really what w
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > But zip is non-free -- you're opening a major can of worms here!
> miniunz.
Cool! Learn something new everyday. :-)
cheers
Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I like to consider the source code (.c files, etc) and it's transfer
> encoding (.tar.gz) to be seperate. if you repack it, or recompress it, all
> you are doing is changing the way it is delivered not what is being
> delivered which is really what we
On Sun, May 30, 1999 at 05:35:56PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > I had cause to look in /etc/passwd recently, and found that several
> > system accounts had inherited my gid, 100:
> > sync:*:4:100:sync:/bin:/bin/sync
> > games:*:5:100:games:/usr/games:
> > man:*:6:100:man:/var/catman:
> Or altern
On Fri, Jun 11, 1999 at 03:19:03PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > > Whoah, you're saying that we can't convert zip archives (which may
> > > contain EAs/resource forks) to tarballs? I think we're going to have
> > > trouble with that one.
>
> > That is exactly what I am saying (assuming the zip f
12 matches
Mail list logo
