Russ Allbery writes:
> Here is the complete text [of the current Policy §2.2.1]:
>
> The main archive area comprises the Debian distribution. Only the
> packages in this area are considered part of the distribution.
> None of the packages in the main archive area require software
>
Michael Gilbert writes:
> Opinions are malleable (wrong and right are all a matter of
> perspective). This is something sufficiently nuanced that I think its
> worth sufficient pondering to really get it right. If you haven't spent
> much time pondering those nuances, it's easy to assume perspe
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Michael Gilbert writes:
>
>> I understand this section very well, and even with that lead-in wording,
>> I contend that sufficient ambiguity remains that additional clarity is
>> needed. Otherwise, it wouldn't have been so difficult to deal w
Michael Gilbert writes:
> I understand this section very well, and even with that lead-in wording,
> I contend that sufficient ambiguity remains that additional clarity is
> needed. Otherwise, it wouldn't have been so difficult to deal with bug
> #449497, which essentially turned into a wontfix.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Michael Gilbert writes:
>
>> This is a bit off-topic for the bug report, but while you're thinking
>> about rewording this section, it may be prescient to consider
>> non-explicit dependencies.
>
>> For example, the getweb script in foo2jzs
Michael Gilbert writes:
> This is a bit off-topic for the bug report, but while you're thinking
> about rewording this section, it may be prescient to consider
> non-explicit dependencies.
> For example, the getweb script in foo2jzs fetches non-free firmware
> files, yet seems to be currently pe
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> This is the bug concerning the wording in current Policy 2.2.1:
>
> In addition, the packages in main
>
> * must not require a package outside of main for compilation or
> execution (thus, the package must not declare a "Depends",
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
How should packages behave if there is no explicit "parallel=N" in
DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS? I saw two different approaches:
1) Behave (roughly) like if parallel=1 was set.
2) Be clever and try to guess the "right" level of parallelism, e.g. by
using "getco
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> No, that's not correct. If a package is already installed but a newever
> version is available, then this will be upgraded if the priority is 1.
> It just won't be selected for installation automatically.
>
> This is how experimental works: packages in
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 06:19:47PM -0400, David Prévot wrote:
> Le 12/03/2012 13:44, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> > On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 01:56:17AM +0100, Carsten Hey wrote:
>
> >> […] how a possible mechanism to let users choose between "always prefer
> >> free packages" and "follow the maintai
10 matches
Mail list logo
