* Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060609 02:14]:
> Vincent Danjean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Kai Hendry wrote:
>
> >> Many package descriptions have a Website: field already. It should just
> >> be in policy too, to promote this good helpful practice.
>
> > For now, it is in the developpe
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 10:51:52AM +0900, Kai Hendry wrote:
> On 2006-06-08T17:49-0700 Chris Waters wrote:
> > Until dpkg supports it, there's little point in debating it on -policy.
> So that's how it works? First dpkg implements the feature, then we can
> think about making it policy?
Basically
Hi!
On 6/8/06, Kai Hendry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2006-06-08T17:49-0700 Chris Waters wrote:
> Until dpkg supports it, there's little point in debating it on -policy.
So that's how it works? First dpkg implements the feature, then we can
think about making it policy?
Actually, yes. That'
On 2006-06-08T17:49-0700 Chris Waters wrote:
> Until dpkg supports it, there's little point in debating it on -policy.
So that's how it works? First dpkg implements the feature, then we can
think about making it policy?
The devel-reference hack isn't working.
http://www.debian.org/doc/developer
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 05:19:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > URL: this has been discussed before many times. No reasonable argument
> > for making it a special field, rather than part of the package
> > description, has ever been put forth. The h
Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> URL: this has been discussed before many times. No reasonable argument
> for making it a special field, rather than part of the package
> description, has ever been put forth. The homepage is a matter of
> interest to humans, not computers.
Except that
Vincent Danjean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Kai Hendry wrote:
>> Many package descriptions have a Website: field already. It should just
>> be in policy too, to promote this good helpful practice.
> For now, it is in the developper reference (and it is ' Homepage:' at
> the end of the long des
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 02:48:34PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 04:28:36AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > Date: [...] Talk to the dpkg maintainers--
> > they're free to implement this feature if they want. It's not a
> > matter for policy.
> I agree it is not a matter fo
Your message was not posted to the debian-security-announce mailing list.
It has instead been forwarded to the security team and the listmaster team.
The debian-security-announce list is a moderated mailing list on
which security-related announcements are made by the security team for
Debian GNU/L
Kai Hendry wrote:
> Many package descriptions have a Website: field already. It should just
> be in policy too, to promote this good helpful practice.
For now, it is in the developper reference (and it is ' Homepage:' at
the end of the long description):
http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-refer
Your message was not posted to the debian-security-announce mailing list.
It has instead been forwarded to the security team and the listmaster team.
The debian-security-announce list is a moderated mailing list on
which security-related announcements are made by the security team for
Debian GNU/L
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.7.2.0
Severity: minor
6.1. Introduction to package maintainer scripts
`postinst' script should install a `config' script in the control are,
^^^
6.4. Exit status
exit stats of these scripts and det
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.7.2.0
Severity: normal
$ echo 1 >counter; DPKG_DEBUG=2 sudo dpkg -i a.deb
(Reading database ... 100920 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to replace a 1 (using a.deb) ...
Runnning: /var/lib/dpkg/info/a.prerm upgrade 1
Desired=Unknown/Install/Re
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 04:28:36AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> Date: no. This is pointless. The information is rarely of interest
> to anyone, and is already available to those who actually want to
> know, for whatever reason. And in any case, it has nothing to do with
> policy. Such a field c
Date: no. This is pointless. The information is rarely of interest
to anyone, and is already available to those who actually want to
know, for whatever reason. And in any case, it has nothing to do with
policy. Such a field could not be created manually. It would have to
be generated by dpkg-b
Frank Küster writes ("Re: Bug#370471: use of "invoke-rc.d $PACKAGE stop || exit
$?" in prerm scripts"):
> Does anybody have an idea how the description of restart could be worded
> better to make #224937 a violation of a must-clause? It's annoying when
> maintainers insist on a clearly not-intend
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 12:31:29AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jun 2006, Kai Hendry wrote:
> > One being Date:
> >
> > To show when the package was last touched. Currently I get this
> > information from the painfully from the "Latest News" section of the QA
> > page, e.g.: http://pac
On 2006-06-08T01:19-0700 Don Armstrong wrote:
> You might as well start by looking for something like that, then just
> fall back upon anything that looks like a URL if there's no indication
> which url is the specific upstream location; putting this into the
> control file doesn't really make all
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006, Kai Hendry wrote:
> On 2006-06-08T00:31-0700 Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Is there any reason why
> > zcat /usr/share/doc//changelog.Debian.gz |perl -ne \
> > 'next unless /^ -- .+?\s{2}(.+)$/; print $1,qq(\n) and exit;';
> > isn't sufficient for all non-native packages?
>
> What
On 2006-06-08T00:31-0700 Don Armstrong wrote:
> Is there any reason why
> zcat /usr/share/doc//changelog.Debian.gz |perl -ne \
> 'next unless /^ -- .+?\s{2}(.+)$/; print $1,qq(\n) and exit;';
> isn't sufficient for all non-native packages?
What if that package isn't installed on your system?
It's
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006, Kai Hendry wrote:
> One being Date:
>
> To show when the package was last touched. Currently I get this
> information from the painfully from the "Latest News" section of the QA
> page, e.g.: http://packages.qa.debian.org/g/geomview.html
Is there any reason why
zcat /usr/sha
21 matches
Mail list logo
