On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 12:16:56AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 12:59:14PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > But Anthony does have a good point, though.
>
> ...which I'm still not sure people are grokking.
>
> Here's some more explanation:
I agree with everything you've po
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 11:29:12AM -0300, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > This has now been seconded twice; it should have its status changed to
> > "accepted" and I guess that the sysvinit and file-rc packages should
> > have bugs against them to include
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 12:59:14PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> But Anthony does have a good point, though.
...which I'm still not sure people are grokking.
Here's some more explanation:
1) Policy is meant to document existing practice. If Build-depends are a
neat new feature that can be u
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 03:26:08PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On 20010225T131051+, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > Of course, with the question of empty dependency lists, there's a
> > problem
>
> Indeed, and I'd like that to be explicitly addressed somewhere.
But it's essentially imposs
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 01:14:47PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> I make this point from self-interest. I have a few packages like
> that, and I'd prefer not to get one misguided bugreport after
> another (not to mention Lintian warnings) about them not having
> Build-Depends.
>
> So please ke
On 20010225T131051+, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Of course, with the question of empty dependency lists, there's a
> problem
Indeed, and I'd like that to be explicitly addressed somewhere.
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 12:59:14PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > I want to see the diff to policy. It's possible to wreck this whole
> > thijng with careless wording.
>
> 2.4.2. Package relationships
>
>
> -Source packages should specify which binary packages t
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 02:40:24PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On 20010225T141840+0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > On 20010225T014140+, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > > Policy should now require packages to specify build time dependencies
> > > (i.e., packages which require ... MUST
On 20010225T141840+0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On 20010225T014140+, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > Policy should now require packages to specify build time dependencies
> > (i.e., packages which require ... MUST specify...)
> >
> > Build time dependencies have been in policy for 18 months
On 20010225T014140+, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Policy should now require packages to specify build time dependencies
> (i.e., packages which require ... MUST specify...)
>
> Build time dependencies have been in policy for 18 months already.
Seconded.
BTW, this was how I intended it when I wrote
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 08:39:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> If you want packages to support build-depends, start filing wishlist bugs
> against packages that don't have build-depends. If you want to actually
> do something particularly useful, work out what each package's build
> dependencies
On Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 07:59:17PM -1000, Brian Russo wrote:
> I can't speak first hand, but only from some of the bug reports I've
> received occasionally, and I think this makes the auto builder's job
> just at least a bit easier (having buil-depends)
Certainly.
> I think it should be MUST for
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 01:15:29PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 01:04:47PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 01:41:40AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > > Policy should now require packages to specify build time dependencies
> > > (i.e., packages which
13 matches
Mail list logo
