Don Armstrong writes:
> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Here's the question: should we say flat-out that both packages must
>> either be architecture-dependent or architecture-independent and then
>> say that the dependency must use (= ), or should we allow what
>> I was trying to all
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Here's the question: should we say flat-out that both packages must
> either be architecture-dependent or architecture-independent and
> then say that the dependency must use (= ), or should we
> allow what I was trying to allow above and then document, su
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>
> > I therefore propose adding GPL version 1 to the list of licenses said by
> > Policy to be in common-licenses and asking Santiago to include a copy in
> > base-files. I'm not including a diff since it would just create merge
>
On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 10:20:43AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
> Hm. There is a small risk that the above will be interpreted to mean
> that e.g. pthreads should be enabled if supported by the library, but
> that is not always the best solution -- consider if a library supports
> native linki
Russ Allbery writes:
>>
>>Libraries should be built with threading support and to be
>>thread-safe if the library supports this.
>>
>
> Yes, that's what I'm proposing -- at a guess, you may have misread the
> diff?
>
>>> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
>>> index
5 matches
Mail list logo
