Hello,
On Mon 18 Nov 2019 at 05:34PM -08, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Yeah, that was my thought process, but I did totally break my own rule. I
> can break this out into a separate change if that makes more sense. I was
> trying to reword the sentence to avoid using "no ... may" and trying to
> keep
David Bremner writes:
> Sean Whitton writes:
>>> -No package for a 64 bit architecture may install files in
>>> -``/usr/lib64/`` or in a subdirectory of it.
>>> +Packages must not install files in ``/usr/lib64`` or in a subdirectory
>>> +of it.
>>
>> This seems to be a semantic c
Sean Whitton writes:
>
>> -No package for a 64 bit architecture may install files in
>> -``/usr/lib64/`` or in a subdirectory of it.
>> +Packages must not install files in ``/usr/lib64`` or in a subdirectory
>> +of it.
>
> This seems to be a semantic change, generalising the requi
Hello,
On Sun 17 Nov 2019 at 05:48PM -08, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I agree, but let's also fix existing incorrect wording. I reviewed every
> instance of may and optional in Policy, and I think this larger diff will
> make wording (mostly) consistent. I've tried not to change the sense of
> any of
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 17:01:21 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Sun 17 Nov 2019 at 10:29AM -08, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > How about:
> >
> > This field should only be used when there are license or DFSG
> > requirements to retain the referenced source package. It should not
> > be added so
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 pending
Bug #904246 [developers-reference] developers-reference: section 6.4 should
recommend command -v, not which
Added tag(s) pending.
--
904246: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=904246
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debia
Hi,
thanks for your feedback, I've now rewritten the paragraph in question
to simply read:
If you need to check for the existence of a command, you should use
something like
::
if command -v install-docs > /dev/null; then ...
You can use this function to search ``$PATH`` for a command
7 matches
Mail list logo
