On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Britton wrote:
>
> > Currently we've only had two real excuses for using empty packages:
> > for handling splits, and for tasks. It seems a little like people want a
> > third sort, just as a collection of related packages that you generally
> > want to install at once. Thi
> Currently we've only had two real excuses for using empty packages:
> for handling splits, and for tasks. It seems a little like people want a
> third sort, just as a collection of related packages that you generally
> want to install at once. This might be just an artifact of "recommends"
> not
Hi Jim!
On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Jim Lynch wrote:
> Hi :)
>
> I have no objection to telling some fact to any maint...
The problem is that dh_make (and not debhelper - sorry JoeyH) creates
a sample file which
| refers to the Free Documentation License by the file name:
Collect all licenses into one place no matter what they are?
Fine.
But -not- in base.
-Jim
Hi :)
I have no objection to telling some fact to any maint...
But the debhelper maintainer isn't the central repository for licenses...
so I don't see how that makes sense.
But I'm going to read the FDL, and if it meets DFSG and is compatible with
and does the same thing as the GPL does for so
Collect all licenses no matter what they are into one place?
Fine.
But -not- in base.
-Jim
OK, I'll read it and comment. If it's compatible with GPL, does the same
things that it does and is dfsg-free, then I do want it in.
-Jim
Package: packaging-manual
Version: 3.2.1.0
This typo is probably not only in the HTML file.
--- ch-maintainerscripts.html.orig Sat Dec 16 13:35:57 2000
+++ ch-maintainerscripts.html Sat Dec 16 13:35:59 2000
@@ -183,7 +183,7 @@
The procedure on installation/upgrade/overwrite/disappear (i
8 matches
Mail list logo
