Julian Gilbey writes:
> An interesting point. Section 5.3 states that 'Version' is mandatory in
> DEBIAN/control; 5.4 that it is mandatory in .dsc, 5.5 that it is
> mandatory in .changes. So it follows that every package MUST have a
> version number. The way policy is currently written is that
"Bernhard R. Link" writes:
> [ignoring ad hominem attacks given here, to avoid returning them...]
Well, making you feel attacked wasn't the goal, but I stand by what I said
in my previous message and don't consider it to be any sort of ad hominem
attack. But regardless
> If you wanted to r
BOn Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 03:11:14PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
>1;2801;0c * Julian Gilbey [111027 12:09]:
> > 3.2: Unchanged,
>
> So a package without a version is fine?
>
> > except in final paragraph where "should be converted"
> > is changed to "SHOULD be converted".
>
> So you suggest t
* Julian Gilbey [111027 12:09]:
> 3.2: Unchanged,
So a package without a version is fine?
> except in final paragraph where "should be converted"
> is changed to "SHOULD be converted".
So you suggest to change policy so that this is no longer a bug if not
done?
Bernhard R. Link
--
T
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 11:18:53AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> If you wanted to replace policy with a formal set of requirements and
> descriptions like RFCs have them, then this argument could hold.
Is not policy mainly trying to do precisely this? If not, then what
is its purpose?
> But t
* Russ Allbery [111026 19:12]:
> "Bernhard R. Link" writes:
> > * Russ Allbery [111026 00:43]:
>
> >> I think it would be lovely to just use RFC 2119 language or a close
> >> adaptation thereof. We're sort of reinventing the wheel here,
>
> > There is also those previous art called "language".
6 matches
Mail list logo
