hi russ,
On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 06:58:34PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> It's definitely worth talking about if the draft database policy says
> something else, as it appears to. My rationale is that the package setup
having re-read it yesterday i don't think that's the intention for it
to say s
Holger Levsen writes:
> please clarify what the right behaviour should be and how failing to
> install without a local db should be treated. Thanks.
I agree with jcristau; I think it's reasonable to have database servers be
in Recommends, to have postinst prompt for what database to use, and if
sean finney writes:
> On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 05:02:06PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > please clarify what the right behaviour should be and how failing to
> > install without a local db should be treated. Thanks.
>
> http://people.debian.org/~seanius/policy/dbapp-policy.html/ch-dbapps.html#s-i
On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 05:02:06PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> package: debian-policy
> x-debbugs-cc: debian-rele...@lists.debian.org
>
> Hi,
>
> please clarify what the right behaviour should be and how failing to install
> without a local db should be treated. Thanks.
http://people.debian.o
package: debian-policy
x-debbugs-cc: debian-rele...@lists.debian.org
Hi,
please clarify what the right behaviour should be and how failing to install
without a local db should be treated. Thanks.
context: bugs such as #595594
h01ger: fwiw i still think that if an app needs to talk to a db
se
On Sat, 04 Sep 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog writes:
> > On Thu, 02 Sep 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> I believe this is true of all binary relationship fields and all build
> >> relationship fields as well. The dpkg-dev tools unfold all of those
> >> fields when generating *.dsc
6 matches
Mail list logo
