Peter Palfrader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 01 Apr 2001, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
>
> > Hi Taral!
> >
> > You wrote:
> >
> > > It should most certainly be debian/rulz, not rulez.
> >
> > Why not make it d3b1an/rulz, then?
>
> d3b14n/ru|z seems like a good choice.
No, no. d3b!4n/ru|z i
On Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 08:23:40PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> IMO, Marcus, you should stick with ',' as your ":" replacement
> character. Unless you feel like filing bugs on packages that fail with
> ":", which should be ok, since it wouldn't be too outlandish to expect
> packages to build in an e
On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 12:43:21AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 03:50:39PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > policy uses alphanumeric to define version numbers. Is this only a-zA-Z0-9,
> > or does this include the "_"? As the "_" is used as a seperator in Debi
On Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 09:42:10PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Apr 2001, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
>
> > Hi Taral!
> >
> > You wrote:
> >
> > > It should most certainly be debian/rulz, not rulez.
> >
> > Why not make it d3b1an/rulz, then?
>
> d3b14n/ru|z seems like a good choice.
Al
On Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 03:50:39PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> policy uses alphanumeric to define version numbers. Is this only a-zA-Z0-9,
> or does this include the "_"? As the "_" is used as a seperator in Debian
> package file names, this would be perverse, but I would like to stay
On Sun, 01 Apr 2001, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> Hi Taral!
>
> You wrote:
>
> > It should most certainly be debian/rulz, not rulez.
>
> Why not make it d3b1an/rulz, then?
d3b14n/ru|z seems like a good choice.
yours,
pe
Hi Taral!
You wrote:
> It should most certainly be debian/rulz, not rulez.
Why not make it d3b1an/rulz, then?
--
Kind regards,
+---+
| Bas Zoetekouw | Si l'on sait exactement ce |
||
Moshe Zadka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 1 Apr 2001 09:59:14 -0300, Henrique M Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > So, I propose we make clear that we are indeed '1337 and rename the
> > debian/rules file to debian/rulez. Anyone who cannot see the benefits of
> > the added c00l
On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> policy uses alphanumeric to define version numbers. Is this only a-zA-Z0-9,
> or does this include the "_"? As the "_" is used as a seperator in Debian
> package file names, this would be perverse, but I would like to stay on the
> safe side.
>
On Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 09:59:14AM -0300, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> The transition from the old to the new system can be easily performed by
> including a test in dpkg-source, so that a debian/rules -> debian/rulez
> symlink is added to the source deb if the debian/rules file is not present
> an
On Sun, 1 Apr 2001 09:59:14 -0300, Henrique M Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> So, I propose we make clear that we are indeed '1337 and rename the
> debian/rules file to debian/rulez. Anyone who cannot see the benefits of
> the added c00lness effect such a change would bring is not fit to b
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.2.0
Severity: wishlist
It is about time we recognize the truth. We have been constantly called as
the most elitist of the GNU/Linux distribuitons, and this is true.
So, I propose we make clear that we are indeed '1337 and rename the
debian/rules file to debian/
Hi,
policy uses alphanumeric to define version numbers. Is this only a-zA-Z0-9,
or does this include the "_"? As the "_" is used as a seperator in Debian
package file names, this would be perverse, but I would like to stay on the
safe side.
Background: I use the version number as a directory name
13 matches
Mail list logo
