Le Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 01:01:57AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>
> The clarification has already been offered, and has one second:
>
> --8<---cut here---start->8---
> --- policy.sgml 2009-10-21 20:49:37 +
> +++ policy.sgml 2009-10-31 01:10:42
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> package debian-policy
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy'
Limit currently set to 'package':'debian-policy'
> user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (wa
package debian-policy
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
severity 553420 wishlist
usertag 553420 = normative issue
thanks
On Fri, Oct 30 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
> there is currently a discussion on debian-de...@lists.debian.org with
> a strong disagreement on what the Policy specifies f
Ben Finney writes:
> I was sloppy in my use of normative language; this is a “must” directive.
> === modified file 'policy.sgml'
> --- policy.sgml 2009-10-21 20:49:37 +
> +++ policy.sgml 2009-10-31 01:10:42 +
> @@ -1725,7 +1725,10 @@
>
> It must start with the line #!/
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.3.0
Severity: normal
Dear Policy delegates,
there is currently a discussion on debian-de...@lists.debian.org with a strong
disagreement on what the Policy specifies for building binary packages, and
what it should specify.
http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/
Ben Finney writes:
> Manoj Srivastava writes:
>
> > I think it would be a good idea to _add_ to policy a rule that
> > says that "make -f debian/rules" and "./debian/rules" must behave
> > identically, to prevent confusion, and to promote reproducibility, and
> > conform to the prin
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> I think it would be a good idea to _add_ to policy a rule that
> says that "make -f debian/rules" and "./debian/rules" must behave
> identically, to prevent confusion, and to promote reproducibility, and
> conform to the principle of least surprise.
Rather
7 matches
Mail list logo
