On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 11:31:45PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 10:24:43PM +0200, Jens Seidel wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:02:33PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > + is an ISO-639 language code, must be encoded with the usual
> > > + legacy (non-UTF-8) character
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 10:24:43PM +0200, Jens Seidel wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:02:33PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > --- orig/policy.sgml
> > +++ mod/policy.sgml
> > @@ -8450,6 +8450,39 @@
> > be present in the future.
> >
> >
> > +
> > +
> > + Manual pages
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:02:33PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> --- orig/policy.sgml
> +++ mod/policy.sgml
> @@ -8450,6 +8450,39 @@
> be present in the future.
>
>
> +
> +
> + Manual pages that are installed under
> + /usr/share/man/ll, where ll
Please
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 04:27:27AM -0400, Daniel Schepler wrote:
> I'd like to get an opinion on a proposal for several new debian/rules targets
> I've been thinking of for a while now. The motivation here is that the
> different patch systems have differing targets required for applying or
> u
I think you're overengineering. There are basicaly two use cases:
a- Developer building a package for a specific purpose (e.g. testing
an improvement), wanting to speed up this specific build.
b- Buildd admin wanting to speed up build of the overall archive [1].
(a) can be archieved s
I'd like to get an opinion on a proposal for several new debian/rules targets
I've been thinking of for a while now. The motivation here is that the
different patch systems have differing targets required for applying or
unapplying patches, which is highly annoying when trying to debug packages
6 matches
Mail list logo
