Re: Build-Depends does not appear in section 5.6

2003-11-12 Thread Bill Allombert
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 11:53:48PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 07:10:26PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > Section 5.6 lists valid control fields, but omit Build-Depends et al, > > which are mentionned in 7.6 > > > Is it an oversight ? > > They are listed in the overvi

Re: Build-Depends does not appear in section 5.6

2003-11-12 Thread Andreas Metzler
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 07:10:26PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > Section 5.6 lists valid control fields, but omit Build-Depends et al, > which are mentionned in 7.6 > Is it an oversight ? They are listed in the overview-paragraph in 5.2 ("The fields in the general paragraph (the first one, for t

Re: Build-Depends does not appear in section 5.6

2003-11-12 Thread Josip Rodin
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 07:10:26PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > Section 5.6 lists valid control fields, but omit Build-Depends et al, > which are mentionned in 7.6 > > Is it an oversight ? We could add another section with a link to 7.6, analogous to 5.6.9 "Package interrelationship fields", bu

Bug#218893: Proposal: debian/rules.version file [Fix for the build-arch problem]

2003-11-12 Thread Bill Allombert
Hello, I am offering a third patch that implement the Build-Options control field proposal. --- policy.sgml Wed Oct 29 22:49:42 2003 +++ policy.sgml.new3Wed Nov 12 21:25:12 2003 @@ -1856,15 +1856,6 @@ - If one or both of the targets build-arch and

Build-Depends does not appear in section 5.6

2003-11-12 Thread Bill Allombert
Hello Debian policy editors, Section 5.6 lists valid control fields, but omit Build-Depends et al, which are mentionned in 7.6 Is it an oversight ? Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here.