On 13-Jan-2006, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> Is there (or should there be) a Debian policy on binary file naming?
Since most executables in Debian packages have existing users from
before the Debian package existed, I can't see any sense in such a
policy unless it says "wherever possible, preserve the
Michael Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Would a policy that requires binary and man page adherence to the
> package name be feasible and desirable?
I think you're better off pushing for inclusion of a README.Debian file in
the doc directory if how to use the package is at all unintuitive (s
Hello all,
Is there (or should there be) a Debian policy on binary file naming?
For example, today I installed the "linhdd" package. To invoke the
program, I typed "$ linhdd". However, I received a "command not
found" message. So, I did "$ apt-file search linhdd" and found that
the binary is a
Cher(s) client(e)
Nous ne gérons pas les messages envoyés sur cette adresse, comme sur l'ensemble
des adresses aux travers desquelles nous vous adressons nos différents messages.
Vous cherchez à joindre notre service client ?
Rien de plus facile, afin d'optimiser le traitement de vos demandes et
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Waters wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 11:19:05AM -0500, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
>>Without this or a similar text, it is not clear to me that source
>>packages creating -headers binary packages are in compliance
>>with Policy, which currently s
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 11:19:05AM -0500, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
> Could Policy be amended slightly to explicitly permit library source
> packages to create a -headers package containing include files?
I would rather see it modified to not forbid it than add a whole
paragraph to explicitly permi
6 matches
Mail list logo
