Re: Build-Depends listed as a should not a must?

2003-02-15 Thread Colin Watson
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 04:09:17AM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 02:43:43AM +, Colin Watson wrote: [your mailer seems to break attributions ... "Josip Rodin wrote:"] > > > [1] #87510, which will incidentally be closed with the next upload. > > > > Uh, the objections have

Processed: and another duplicate one

2003-02-15 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > merge 54985 83669 Bug#54985: .so in a -dev package should be a file, not a symlink Bug#83669: [PROPOSAL] Handling if shared libraries Merged 54985 83669. > -- Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking sys

Re: Build-Depends listed as a should not a must?

2003-02-15 Thread Josip Rodin
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 02:43:43AM +, Colin Watson wrote: > > [1] #87510, which will incidentally be closed with the next upload. > > Uh, the objections have not been resolved. The shell one-liner Anthony > posted in http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=87510&msg=102 > currently pr

CVS joy: remove needless examples/ path component for packages whose whole purpose is to provide examples, according to 2.5 years old, yet entirely non-controversial #69864

2003-02-15 Thread Debian Policy CVS
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy Module name:debian-policy Changes by: joy Sat Feb 15 20:01:23 MST 2003 Modified files: . : policy.sgml upgrading-checklist.html debian : changelog Log message: remove needless examples/ path component for pack

Re: Build-Depends listed as a should not a must?

2003-02-15 Thread Colin Watson
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 03:11:57AM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 07:04:32PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote: > >Non-conformance with guidelines denoted by should (or recommended) > >will generally be considered a bug, but will not necessarily render a > >package unsu

Processed: a better title

2003-02-15 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > retitle 54985 .so in a -dev package should be a file, not a symlink Bug#54985: debian-policy: handling of shared libraries Changed Bug title. > End of message, stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking sy

CVS joy: the shared libs change fixed another bug, yay

2003-02-15 Thread Debian Policy CVS
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy Module name:debian-policy Changes by: joy Sat Feb 15 19:26:11 MST 2003 Modified files: debian : changelog Log message: the shared libs change fixed another bug, yay

Re: Build-Depends listed as a should not a must?

2003-02-15 Thread Josip Rodin
On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 07:04:32PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote: > Section 2.4.2 of the Debian Policy indicates that listing Build-Depends > in a source package is only a "should", not a mandatory requirement: > >Source packages should specify which binary packages they require to >be ins

CVS joy: moved all the shared library package arrangement stuff from the files chapter to the shared libraries chapter, closes: #109166

2003-02-15 Thread Debian Policy CVS
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy Module name:debian-policy Changes by: joy Sat Feb 15 18:43:19 MST 2003 Modified files: . : policy.sgml debian : changelog Log message: moved all the shared library package arrangement stuff from the files chap

Build-Depends listed as a should not a must?

2003-02-15 Thread Jamin W. Collins
Section 2.4.2 of the Debian Policy indicates that listing Build-Depends in a source package is only a "should", not a mandatory requirement: Source packages should specify which binary packages they require to be installed or not to be installed in order to build correctly. For example, i

Bug#163142: marked as done (www.debian.org: menu policy is incomplete)

2003-02-15 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Sun, 16 Feb 2003 00:53:08 +0100 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Mistake 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 is now your responsibility to reopen t

Processed: gfdl

2003-02-15 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > severity 79538 wishlist Bug#79538: [REJECTED] Include FDL in common-licenses Severity set to `wishlist'. > retitle 79538 Include FDL in common-licenses Bug#79538: [REJECTED] Include FDL in common-licenses Changed Bug title. > severity 177306 wishlist

Processed: and of course i missed (at least) one

2003-02-15 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > merge 79538 172010 Bug#79538: Include FDL in common-licenses Bug#172010: licenses: documentation license should be included Bug#173737: GNU Free Documentation License should be added to common-licenses Bug#177306: please include the complete text of the

Bug#161455: marked as done (debian-policy: reference to ash outdated)

2003-02-15 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Sun, 16 Feb 2003 01:01:17 +0100 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Closing 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 is now your responsibility to reopen t

CVS joy: clarify wording in the section on the location of configuration files, closes: #170019

2003-02-15 Thread Debian Policy CVS
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy Module name:debian-policy Changes by: joy Sat Feb 15 17:07:45 MST 2003 Modified files: . : policy.sgml debian : changelog Log message: clarify wording in the section on the location of configuration files, cl

Processed: doh

2003-02-15 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > merge 131583 172022 Bug#131583: debian-policy: packaging-manual section 7.1 missing from policy Bug#172022: FWD: Re: description writing guide Merged 131583 172022. > -- Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug t

Processed: cleanup on init script bugs

2003-02-15 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > unmerge 87994 Bug#87994: [PROPOSAL] better initscript definition, and adding 'restart-if-running' Bug#60979: What /etc/init.d/xxx restart does? Disconnected #87994 from all other report(s). > retitle 87994 add 'restart-if-running' in init scripts Bug#

CVS joy: init script restart will start a service if not running (three seconds to the latest bug, no objections)

2003-02-15 Thread Debian Policy CVS
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy Module name:debian-policy Changes by: joy Sat Feb 15 09:15:51 MST 2003 Modified files: . : policy.sgml upgrading-checklist.html debian : changelog Log message: init script restart will start a service if not r

Re: conflicting -dev packages

2003-02-15 Thread Andrew Suffield
On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 08:58:00AM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote: > We have too many conflicting -dev packages. Yes, and it's bloody hard to fix. There are two problems involved for C libraries (and analogous ones for others) - the symlink in /usr/lib, and the headers. > Suppose I had two projects

Re: conflicting -dev packages

2003-02-15 Thread Kai Henningsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Josip Rodin) wrote on 15.02.03 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 08:58:00AM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote: > > The only time I see where deviating from that rule would be justified is > > when two -dev packages Depend: on some other packages that cannot be made >

Re: conflicting -dev packages

2003-02-15 Thread Josip Rodin
On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 08:58:00AM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote: > The only time I see where deviating from that rule would be justified is > when two -dev packages Depend: on some other packages that cannot be made > non-conflicting, so that avoiding the conflict at the -dev level would not >

Re: conflicting -dev packages

2003-02-15 Thread Kai Henningsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Oohara Yuuma) wrote on 15.02.03 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 15 Feb 2003 08:58:00 +0200, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) wrote: > > We have too many conflicting -dev packages. > Because we have the .so -> .so.x.y.z symlinks. Don't bother replying to the first sentence if

Re: conflicting -dev packages

2003-02-15 Thread Oohara Yuuma
On 15 Feb 2003 08:58:00 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) wrote: > We have too many conflicting -dev packages. Because we have the .so -> .so.x.y.z symlinks. -- Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian developer PGP key (key ID F464A695) http://www.interq.or.jp/libra/oohara/pub-key.txt Key

BAROQUE: Peter Paul RUBENS

2003-02-15 Thread Baroque Art
Title: ARTPRICE SEARCHBAR TM - Peter Paul Rubens [en français] Join the 900,000 Artprice customers Artprice Pure Play (unlimited access): USD/EUR 16.58 per month The true price of fine art! Der echte Preis der Kunst ¡El verdadero precio del Arte! Which worldwide data bank can provide you wi

conflicting -dev packages

2003-02-15 Thread Kai Henningsen
We have too many conflicting -dev packages. Suppose I had two projects - one wanting to use Berkeley DB 4.1, one for an Apache module. I'd need to constantly reinstall the various -dev packages because apache-dev depends on libdb2-dev, and libdb2-dev and libdb4.1-dev conflict. Now suppose t