On Fri, Mar 13 2009, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> [ Bcced to -devel and -dpkg, discussion should happen on -policy ]
>
> Hello,
>
> we have an unfortunate situation where the practice in dpkg-buildpackage
> and the policy do not match fully.
>
> I tried to summarize the problem here:
> http://wiki.deb
[ Bcced to -devel and -dpkg, discussion should happen on -policy ]
Hello,
we have an unfortunate situation where the practice in dpkg-buildpackage
and the policy do not match fully.
I tried to summarize the problem here:
http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/DebianRules
I want to resolve this probl
On Thu, Mar 12 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 06:48:32PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> Oh, I think the existing language is perfectly unambiguous, I'm just saying
> that the behavior described doesn't seem to be what most/many maintainers
> want in practice, with the re
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bernd Zeimetz writes:
>
>> No, please don't just add another watch file just for the sake of it,
>> using these files is more or less like living in the last
>> century. People are able to get the current source from the Debian pool,
>> if that is not enough for them, they s
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12 2009, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>
>> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> a) Run a upstream version check from cron, which mails me if there are
>>> new upstream versions of something I have.
>> What happens if your watch file breaks? Do you check upstream announcem
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 08:49:19PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> No, please don't just add another watch file just for the sake of it, using
> these files is more or less like living in the last century. People are able
> to
> get the current source from the Debian pool, if that is not enough for
6 matches
Mail list logo
