On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 11:41:06 +0200
Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi Neil,
>
> applause, thanks & good luck to making grip official!
:-)
> just one tiny comment:
>
> On Sonntag, 7. August 2011, Neil Williams wrote:
> > 9.8 Keyboard configuration - Note that many Emdebian
bian Policy with a set
of footnotes?
[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-embedded/2011/04/msg00013.html
[1] http://wiki.debian.org/EmdebianPolicy/Background
[2] http://wiki.debian.org/EmdebianPolicy
[3] http://www.emdebian.org/grip/
[4] http://packages.qa.debian.org/e/emdebian-grip.html
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 23:05:39 +0200
Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> Hi Neil,
>
> On moandei 19 July 2010, Neil Williams wrote:
> > This sentence in Policy 2.5 is too prohibitive:
> > "Systems with only the required packages are probably unusable, but
> > they do have e
uired packages and a
selection of hand-picked packages from Priority: optional which are
fully usable systems - within the expectations of what such a system
can be expected to achieve, e.g. a NAS or mobile phone installation.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/07/msg00337.html
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 22:42:30 +0200
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Neil Williams (14/04/2009):
> > > > http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep4/#index9h2
> > >
> > > You probably need to clarify in your DEP what “initial” means.
> >
> > This section covers part
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 21:10:16 +0200
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Neil Williams (14/04/2009):
> > > Any reason not to make that “sourceful uploads”?
> >
> > Well, the maintainer will be making the initial TDeb upload
> > (effectively +t0) so the restriction doe
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:04:14 +0200
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Neil Williams (14/04/2009):
> > This is where the Draft TDeb Specification, created at the
> > ftp-master/i18n meeting in Extremadura, will be developed and improved.
> > Motivation
> >
> >1. U
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:29:17 +0200
Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 11:49:53AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> > If replying from the -policy list, please keep either me or -devel
> > CC'd. I'm subscribed to both -devel and -i18n. Thanks.
> >
> &g
he /usr/share/emdebian-tools/dh_gentdeb
and /usr/share/emdebian-tools/dpkg-gentdeb test scripts.
My git foo is very poor so if there are people willing and able to help
with the git-ness problems, take a look at the repo and tell me
*precisely* what commands I need to fix stuff. ;-)
More on that on p
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:34:23 -0700
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 07:21:15AM +0000, Neil Williams wrote:
> > > Also, is the new dpkg going to Pre-Depend: on this new install-info
> > > package?
> > > If not, what does this /usr/sbin/insta
ebian.org/debian-dpkg/2009/03/msg00019.html
>
> Given that install-info is codified in Policy, I think this plan needs to be
> vetted via the policy process and include specific changes to the language
> in Policy, prior to moving forward on implementation.
There probably should have been
ht without debhelper, including generating
it from LICENCE files and similar.
> Having every package have the same name for the file seems like a better
> situation than having to check which name to use.
I'd agree that having the same filename is preferable.
--
Neil Wil
ry
> easy to google for. :-) What do we want to do?
Combine apt-get install foo-dbg with apt-get source foo ? Isn't it up to
the debugging tool to correlate one with the other, rather than the
distro?
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Wed, 2008-04-16 at 22:12 +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 04:12:45PM +0200, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 11:23:51AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> >
> > > What about these clauses as a Policy amendment?
> > >
> &g
On Wed, 2008-04-16 at 17:23 +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> First of all, I skipped a large part of this thread, so I'm sorry if
> this has come up before.
>
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 03:53:03PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> > > And by this definition, it is the package
On Wed, 2008-04-16 at 16:12 +0200, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 11:23:51AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
>
> > What about these clauses as a Policy amendment?
> >
> > 1. If a library *only supports the retrieval of FOO_LIBS and / or
> > FOO_CFLAGS
-Depends on pkg-config in the source
package.
Is that suitable as a Policy clause? (probably needs a few tweaks for
clarity and examples in clause 1). It may well cause a few packages to
depend or build-depend on pkg-config even though another dependency also
requires it but duplication of depen
separate issue that the gpe meta-package currently depends on
gsoko that is extra but that's minor - I can drop the gsoko depends on
the meta package without too much of a problem.)
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 23:03:54 +0100
Gabor Gombas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 08:08:03PM +0000, Neil Williams wrote:
>
> > What about:
> >
> > "Packages that run a test suite during the default build must support
> > omitting the te
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:07:42 -0500
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Neil Williams wrote:
> > There needs to be some agreement on what nocheck or notest means and
> > which one to use. For Emdebian needs, whichever name is used, the
> > imperative is that setting
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 17:35:00 +0100
Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 04:08:11PM +0000, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Actually, Guillem has already filed the bug: 416450
> > [PROPOSAL] New option in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS to avoid running test-suites
&
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 15:44:27 +0200
Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 07, 2007, Neil Williams wrote:
> > i.e. the reverse sense - the dbg name should be forced to use the lib
> > prefix where the only packages built from that source already use the
> >
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 14:08:35 +0200
Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 07, 2007, Neil Williams wrote:
> > The principle here is to make upstream development on Debian easier
>
> To be clear, the only part I'm not confortable about is forcing the dbg
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 11:55:54 +0200
Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Aug 07, 2007, Neil Williams wrote:
> > the -dbg (with SONAME)
> [...]
> > provide a binary package
> > libra
glink section in the corresponding unstripped object."
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/serendipity/index.php?/archives/18-Mandatory-dbg-packages-for-libraries.html#comments
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 2007-04-22 19:48
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.
e Policy maintainers.
Have I missed a step in the request for -dbg packages for each shared
library, previously discussed on debian-devel?
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/04/msg00663.html
I don't mind creating a bug report - I'm just not sure if it is
necessary.
--
Neil Williams
26 matches
Mail list logo
