On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 02:13:41PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Luca> At last we need a document that tells maintainers how to build
> Luca> a dpkg package from source, assuming both to be Debian policy
> Luca> compliant (since we choose dpkg as our official packaging
> Luca> tool). Such a
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 03:20:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Julian" == Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Julian> On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 02:30:34PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> >>
> >> Refer to a dpkg reference instead and document extra restrictions
>
> Julian> Su
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Anthony Towns wrote:
> This is rather non-sensical: all packages /are/ left to the whimsy of
> the dpkg developers. If you don't believe me, I'm sure Wichert or Adam
> will be happy to introduce some random bugs in dpkg 1.10.x to demonstrate.
Just say the word, and we'd be hap
>>""Luca" == "Luca <- De Whiskey's - De Vitis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> writes:
Luca> The dpkg reference should describe what is a dpkg package and
Luca> its internals:
As well as any new or optional input or output, and actions
not required for packaging (dpkg-deb -x details do not need
OK, I'll bite.
* Anthony Towns [020503 08:38]:
> On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 07:15:09PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Seems to me that if bug severity is orthagonal to release criticality
>
> People keep saying that, but it's not true [0].
I think you and Joey are saying the same thing if you read h
Hi all,
As someone other pointed out, the discussion on -project about the
rewrite/improvement of the developer's references was changing topic into a
policy related discussion: so I'm here to forward my proposal.
I want to say that no one better than a new maintainer (I'm only one
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 09:32:25AM -0700, Grant Bowman wrote:
> * Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020503 09:21]:
> > On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 08:16:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > There may be subtle differences between the meanings of the various
> > > terms, but they are *very* strong
* Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020503 09:21]:
> On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 08:16:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > There may be subtle differences between the meanings of the various
> > terms, but they are *very* strongly correlated, which is right at the
> > other extreme from orthogonal
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 08:16:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 07:15:09PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Seems to me that if bug severity is orthagonal to release criticality
>
> People keep saying that, but it's not true [0]. "Release critical bugs"
> are those that are ser
Anthony Towns wrote:
> ``BAM! Science triumphs again!''
> -- http://www.angryflower.com/vegeta.gif
You know I really wish I hadn't looked at that
straight after lunch (even though it was all
vegetable matter :-)
- Richard
/me gets back to work and vows never to follow
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 10:09:11AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Part I: The Debian Archive
> 1: DFSG and the sections of the archive (free, non-free, contrib, non-us)
"Components" is a much better word to use here. (And is the word used
everywhere but -policy, just ab
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 02:59:36PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Julian" == Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Julian> People *used* to make that complaint. And if we now move to having a
> Julian> lean policy standards document and a developers reference and a best
> Julian> pro
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 07:15:09PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Seems to me that if bug severity is orthagonal to release criticality
People keep saying that, but it's not true [0]. "Release critical bugs"
are those that are serious, grave or critical. "Bugs that will stop the
release of that package
가브리엘향수
파운데이션
총알청바지
\25,000
\39,000
\31,500
허락 없이 메일을 보내드려 죄송합니다.
원치 않으시면 옆의 버튼을 눌러주세요.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 03:20:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Julian" == Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Julian> Surely either everything necessary should be in the dpkg reference or
> Julian> everything necessary should be in policy. q
> On the other hand, all packages
Is there any reason for this thread to still be on -project? It's entirely
about rewriting debian-policy now, isn't it?
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 03:32:11PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > So if the dpkg reference doesn't document everything that Debian needs
> > in this respect, what is the best
Previously Grant Bowman wrote:
> This is somewhat an aside, but this is already moving away from
> GNU/Debian Linux specific through several ports of GNU/Debian. There
> are the hurd, bsd and win32/cygwin ports already.
I have never been able to find patches for the win32/cygwin port though.
I kn
* Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020502 09:54]:
> Previously Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > I understand that dpkg can be used elsewhere than Debian, but
> > it's de facto purpose is to serve as the Debian packaging system.
>
> I'm somewhat interested in having dpkg accepted in other environments
>>"Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Wichert> I do hope you trust is to make changes sensibly. In fact the current
Wichert> reference draft already has some information on the backward and
Wichert> forward compatibility guarantees dpkg gives.
Oh,, absolutely. But
19 matches
Mail list logo
