On Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 01:11:44PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> It is not the job of the Debian maintainer to write the upstream
> package. The job of the Debian maintainer is to package the
> existing upstream package in a form convenient for Debian users in
> a way that is complementary to th
On Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 05:18:48PM +0100, Roman Hodek wrote:
>
> > The fact that most maintainers don't need to perform builds on the
> > non-x86 architectures could use some clarification.
>
> The programmer's reference by Adam contains a fine section about
> portability etc.
Nevertheless, it w
> The fact that most maintainers don't need to perform builds on the
> non-x86 architectures could use some clarification.
The programmer's reference by Adam contains a fine section about
portability etc.
Roman
> And creates a symlink.
..but not for man pages in /usr/share/man.
> a) this seems a pretty minor problem, given people will be able to
> read /usr/man/foo and /usr/doc/foo
The man in slink doesn't look at /usr/share/man !
> b) Adding two lines of code to debian/rules is so mind-blowingly
> e
Seconded.
--
G. Branden Robinson|Q: How does a Unix guru have sex?
Debian GNU/Linux |A: unzip;strip;touch;finger;mount;fsck;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | more;yes;fsck;fsck;fsck;umount;sleep
roger.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ |
pgpFHOZTkL7uB.pgp
Description: P
Further sign of a problem:
The netbase package has a lot of missing manpages; all of the relevant
bugreports are listed as "wishlist", having had them set that way by
the maintainer.
I'm sure it's not the only such package; it's just the one I happened
on first.
Thomas
I'm not sure I have an opinion on exactly what the right thing to do
is with undocumented(7). When I first saw it I thought it was a clver
solution to a perennial problem, but I also not that people have
started to recall undocumented(7) as a substitute for a manpage.
What is weird is the long c
7 matches
Mail list logo
