e to the canonical repository, yes.
I've added this information to the web page now
(i.e. http://www.debian.org/doc/devel-manuals)
Feel free to review and correct what I wrote.
Gruesse,
--
Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
www: http://www.djpig.de/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
since last upload),
so I wasn't sure.
Never investigated this further, though. I would also be interested in
the answer.
CCing debian-policy list.
Gruesse,
--
Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
www: http://www.djpig.de/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
@@ -1,3 +1,12 @@
+2007-10-06 Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
+
+ * deb-control.5: Move description of
+ version format to...
+ * deb-version.5: Take the section from
+ policy describing version format and
+ sorting since this is probably as good
+
ages are:
[...]
Hmm, I have a package that depends on makedev (pbbuttonsd) and I was
wondering why it doesn't show up in your list? Maybe because it
is powerpc only? Or is there a "real" reason why I shouldn't add
an alternate dependency on udev?
Gruesse,
--
Frank L
whether a -0.1 release occurred.
>
> I don't see much point in dpkg rejecting -0, since it is a Debian
> specific practice. If -0 must be rejected then it should be done by
> dak, not dpkg (imho).
just for the record: the fact that dpkg-dev currently can't unpack
such packages
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 02:37:34PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 01:26:41PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 11:32:17AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > + In addition, maintainers should create a target
> > > +
cussion to not make many packages instantly buggy?
(Apart from that fact I agree with the proposal, just for the record)
Gruesse,
--
Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
www: http://www.djpig.de/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ipts and not be included in the .deb archive. These
scripts must not fail if either of these operations fail." (9.1.2)
since the chmodding is clearly part of the creation of the directory.
And regarding the example, it's just this, an example, and therefor
probably not really a policy r
8 matches
Mail list logo
