[cc'd to Nicolás and Wichert since they are probably the most
interested parties & I dunno if they monitor -policy.]
What is the status of this proposal? Are we still undecided on its
merits or do we just lack patches to the policy and packaging manuals
to codify it?
If we don't have consensus
Your message dated 31 Jan 2001 21:44:37 -0600
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#84236: Date typo in upgrading-checklist.text.gz
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it
>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian> IMO the right thing to do is to always build with -g and strip
Ian> at `install' time (ie, when the programs are copied into the
Ian> debian/tmp directory, before dpkg-deb is run).
Why is it the right thing to do? I understand tha
Hi,
>>"Sébastien" == Sébastien Montagne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Sébastien> File: /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist.text.gz
Sébastien> Line: 13
Sébastien> Date of version 3.5.0.0 should be
Sébastien> Jan 01
Sébastien> instead of
Sébastie
>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian> What I do at the moment is install the unstable package, plus its
Ian> dependencies, by hand with dpkg.
I am given to understand that with apt 0.4, one can say
# apt-get install foo=unstable
manoj
--
If money can't buy
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Ian Jackson wrote:
> * You have to figure out the dependencies yourself. dpkg will stop
> you getting it wrong, but it won't tell you easily how to get it right
> and you don't get the right packages downloaded automatically. This
> is a deficiency shared by dselect and apt
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 03:45:09PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman writes ("Bug#83924: upgrading-checklist.text should mention
> DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS specifically"):
> > upgrading-checklist.text states:
> >
> > - By default executables should not be built with the debugging
> >
>>"Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joey> debian-policy@lists.debian.org wrote:
>> Log message:
>> Updated the build depends; deconf_specification pulls us into the XML worls
Joey> If this is a bad thing, it would probably build as docbook sgml
Joey> with few changes..
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.0.0
File: /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist.text.gz
Line: 13
Date of version 3.5.0.0 should be
Jan 01
instead of
Jan 28
souldn't it ?
Russell Nelson writes ("Is the stable/unstable split broken?"):
> Is Debian's stable/unstable split a broken concept?
>
> Here's the problem as I see it. I want to run an operating system
> where I get to choose the level of instability. So, when I run
> "apt-get update", I only want to get stab
Matt Zimmerman writes ("Bug#83924: upgrading-checklist.text should mention
DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS specifically"):
> upgrading-checklist.text states:
>
> - By default executables should not be built with the debugging
>option -g. Instead, it is recommended to support building the
>
[Yes, I know I'm (a bit) late, but I think one point has to be raised,
and as no-one has done so as far as I can tell...]
You are all aware that the http://www.bxa.doc.gov/Encryption/Default.htm
are Crypt Policies of the *Administration*, right?
And we also know that this administration has chang
12 matches
Mail list logo
