* PJ Weisberg [Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 08:46:22AM -0700]:
> On Wednesday, June 15, 2011, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I'm not sure if we can make it much more obvious than what it currently
> > says. There's no mention or hint of permissions anywhere in the
> > description you quote, and it specifically
* Bill Allombert [Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 02:48:11PM +0200]:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 01:33:03PM +0200, Michael Prokop wrote:
> > | 5.6.3 Uploaders
[...]
> > I don't mean to nit-pick but I just had a discussion with some DDs
> > about who should be really listed in the
* Russ Allbery [Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 07:30:37AM -0700]:
> Michael Prokop writes:
> > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Uploaders
> > reads as follows:
> > | 5.6.3 Uploaders
> > |
> > | List of the names and email addresses of co
Package: debian-policy
Severity: normal
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Uploaders
reads as follows:
| 5.6.3 Uploaders
|
| List of the names and email addresses of co-maintainers of the
| package, if any. If the package has other maintainers besides the
| one nam
* Russ Allbery [Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 08:12:03PM -0700]:
> Michael Prokop writes:
> > Yeah, actually the change is breaking existing packages which used to
> > work just fine (disclaimer: no, the ones I'm talking about aren't
> > available in the official Debian pool
* Julien Cristau [Son Apr 03, 2011 at 10:16:47 +0200]:
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 05:03:47 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > On Sat, 2011-04-02 at 21:28:08 +0200, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> > > dpkg 1.16.0 appears to refuse to install packages which have a Version:
> > > field which does not sta
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Section 8.4 of the policy says:
| 8.4 Development files
|
| The development files associated to a shared library need to be
| placed in a package called librarynamesoversion-dev, or if you
| prefer only to support one development version at a time,
| lib
7 matches
Mail list logo
