On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 12:48:25AM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> > I would instead suggest changing the next paragraph to something like
> > the following:
> >
> > ``In case a package uses a build system for which documentation
> > sufficient to satisfy this requirement ex
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 10:31:34 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > If we had a generic set of packaging types that we could agree didn't
> > need to be documented in README.source (perhaps in devref, with pointers
> > to the actual documentation?), the README.source could be reserved for
> > things which
Don Armstrong writes:
> If we had a generic set of packaging types that we could agree didn't
> need to be documented in README.source (perhaps in devref, with pointers
> to the actual documentation?), the README.source could be reserved for
> things which actually were unusual, and would obviate
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> I think having short README.source is better than having none. If
> there is a short one in normal cases, people can always look at it
> and see at one glance whether it is what they expect or if it needs
> special consideration.
My main concern is ma
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Hi policy folks,
We've now got to the stage where we seem to have a good webapps policy
in place, and would like to have it included in policy main as a
'sub-policy' document.
For reference, it's at
http://webapps-common.alioth.debian.org/draft/html/
Th
* Chris Lamb [090908 02:02]:
> > Such phrasing will result in README.source files saying
> >
> > "This package uses quilt, as documented in
> > /usr/share/doc/quilt/README.source"
>
> Whilst I quite like the idea of allowing source documentation to be
> satisfied by build dependencies, a single-li
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 20:50:30 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index 0bf8253..347c0bf 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -5584,6 +5584,40 @@ libbar 1 bar1 (>= 1.0-1)
>
>
>
> +
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 11:36:04AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 20:50:30 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > +
> > + Applications may also use a single subdirectory under
> > + /usr/lib/triplet.
> > +
> Is /l
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 20:50:30 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> +
> + Applications may also use a single subdirectory under
> + /usr/lib/triplet.
> +
Is /lib/ intentionally left out here? I don't know how likely
that is, but if pe
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 12:48:25AM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> But would such a pointer be valuable enough to mitigate these concerns? For
> a newbie, the answer might very well be "yes". However, this seems like a
> weak and relatively rare case to optimise for, compounded by the high cost
> of exc
On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 08:50:30PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 09:25:30PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Manoj Srivastava writes:
> > > On Fri, Aug 21 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> > >> The current restriction is specific to libraries. Don't we need to say
> > >> that
11 matches
Mail list logo
