On Fri, 09 Feb 2001, Brian May wrote:
> My only concern with the policy change, is what defines a "native
> package"?
Whatever defined it before. It is not in policy, AFAIK. Probably some doc or
even code in the dpkg package is the authoritative source for the
definition... Just like dpkg-source's
> "Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Wichert> FWIW, if this change gets accepted all my currently
Wichert> Debian native package will suddenly no longer become
Wichert> Debian native and get an empty diff file.
...and why is an empty diff file, for a small (
Previously Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> 3. Just detect a non-native->native transition (cannot catch
> bogus first uploads)
As far as I know katie already implements that.
Wichert.
--
/ Generally uninteresting signature
On Thu, 08 Feb 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> FWIW, if this change gets accepted all my currently Debian native package
> will suddenly no longer become Debian native and get an empty diff file.
Yes, that would be expected.
Personally, I'd rather see empty .diff.gz's than people giving up their
Previously Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> Should debian-native *source* packages (.tar.gz + .dsc) be forbidden to
> include a debian revision field, the problem would be detectable, and both
> lintian and katie (dinstall) could be made to flag such uploads as improper.
FWIW, if this change gets acce
Ben Collins wrote:
> > Well then the debian package ends up with xx.xx-x-y versioning, in
> > which case it is not a debian native package, and the policy proposal
> > would require it to have a .diff.gz. A package with xx.xx-x versioning
> > cannot be a debian native package; let me quote existing
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 11:08:20AM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Ben Collins wrote:
> > > Should debian-native *source* packages (.tar.gz + .dsc) be forbidden to
> > > include a debian revision field, the problem would be detectable, and both
> > > lintian and katie (dinstall) could be made to flag
> "Ben" == Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ben> On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 02:33:05PM -0200, Henrique M Holschuh
Ben> wrote:
>> Package: debian-policy Version: 3.5.0.0 Severity: wishlist
Ben> What if upstream has a xx.xx-x version numbering? That's
Ben> perfectly legit
Ben Collins wrote:
> > Should debian-native *source* packages (.tar.gz + .dsc) be forbidden to
> > include a debian revision field, the problem would be detectable, and both
> > lintian and katie (dinstall) could be made to flag such uploads as
> > improper.
> What if upstream has a xx.xx-x ver
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hi,
>>"Brendan" == Brendan O'Dea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brendan> Updated version at
Brendan> http://people.debian.org/~bod/perl/perl-policy.sgml,
Looking good. I hereby second this proposal. Brendan, could
you also include a patch to policy p
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 02:33:05PM -0200, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.5.0.0
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Currently it is impossible to verify when a source package is mistakenly
> uploaded in debian-native source format (.tar.gz + .dsc) instead of
> non-native sour
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.0.0
Severity: wishlist
Currently it is impossible to verify when a source package is mistakenly
uploaded in debian-native source format (.tar.gz + .dsc) instead of
non-native source format (.orig.tar.gz + .diff.gz + .dsc).
Such broken uploads are reasonably com
On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 07:27:17PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
>Argh, egg on face: linux lets the owner of a file modify it even if it
>is mode 444 and in a directory they do not own. Yuck! Is this standard
>unix semantics? It sucks.
Standard Unix semantics prevents non-root users from writing to file
On Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 04:34:31PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>>"Brendan" == Brendan O'Dea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brendan> Because such packages don't include the paths for packaged debian
> Brendan> modules, so you can't say "Depends: perl-5.005, libfoo-perl".
>
> Sure. So I can'
14 matches
Mail list logo
