On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:02:44PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I'd see it as a problem if there were some best
> practice in policy that was implemented by a good fraction of the
> packages but the release team were not willing to accept that practice
> as a release requirement.
Nope, no chance
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 09:14:03PM +0200, Jens Seidel wrote:
> I think the handling of empty strings in version numbers is wrong
> (tested with dpkg 1.10.10). I experienced with two packages
> pkg_1.1beta3-1_i386.deb and pkg_1.1-1_i386.deb. It seems that 1.1beta3-1
> is newer than version 1.1-1. I
Title: uaJlCpI
Hello, Debian-policy!
wmxZGBI Freddy vs. Jason, Frontier Ye
XLr stars battleigtUt
The American student Wj
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 12:34:30PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:44:00AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > I'd rather we stopped looking at policy as "mandating things".
>
> > There are three things policy's trying to do at the moment:
> >
> > 1) specify technical stand
Hello,
Here is a very small diff fixing a typo against current CVS.
--- debian-policy.sgml.orig Tue Aug 26 21:44:10 2003
+++ debian-policy.sgml Tue Aug 26 21:44:28 2003
@@ -7207,7 +7207,7 @@
string in some place, the following format should be
used: arch-os
Hi all,
I think the handling of empty strings in version numbers is wrong
(tested with dpkg 1.10.10). I experienced with two packages
pkg_1.1beta3-1_i386.deb and pkg_1.1-1_i386.deb. It seems that 1.1beta3-1
is newer than version 1.1-1. Is this true?
OK, let's analyze Debian Policy 3.6.1.0, secti
> "Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_rc_policy.txt is a
Anthony> good start at separating out (3), and I'm happy for the
Anthony> release team to continue maintaining that, even though it
Anthony> obviously is a little redundant wrt
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 18:54:31 +1000, Anthony Towns
said:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 12:50:53AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> In my view, policy is supposed to represent the minimum set of
>> rules that packages follow to allow the parts to dovetail together.
> I don't think that makes sense
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:44:00AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > I'd rather if we dropped all such transitional issues from the Policy
> > manual. They're just bother and don't really have to be here to be mandated
> > by the project (examples abound -- libc6-migration, fhs migration, C++ 3
> > t
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 06:54:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> But doing any of that requires a document that's willing to cover all
> the things we're trying to achieve. Having many documents doesn't work,
> because packagers coming to Debian need to be able to find *everything*
> that affects t
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 12:50:53AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> In my view, policy is supposed to represent the minimum set of
> rules that packages follow to allow the parts to dovetail together.
I don't think that makes sense -- getting packages to dovetail together
isn't something th
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 02:44:00 +1000, Anthony Towns
said:
> I'd rather we stopped looking at policy as "mandating things". There
> are three things policy's trying to do at the moment:
> 1) specify technical standards, like version formats and package
> names
> 2) specify packaging an
12 matches
Mail list logo
