at and listen to somebody
else or come up with their own documents as and when they see fit.
Cheers,
--
| .''`. ** Debian **
Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal
http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `' Operating System
ss wrong I won't mind adding a link to it.
> By doing that, we define the term "porterbox", too, which is nice.
Cheers,
weasel
--
| .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal
http://www
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Colin Watson wrote:
> --- policy.sgml.orig 2002-11-12 12:50:40.0 +
> +++ policy.sgml 2002-11-12 12:51:30.0 +
> @@ -7485,22 +7485,22 @@
> page included as well.
>
>
> -
> - If no manual page is available for a particula
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.5.6.1
> Severity: important
>
> Section 11.7.3 says that changes to configuration files are supposed to be
> preserved on upgrade. This is not commonly done, however, if the change
> consists in deleting the fi
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> in /usr/doc/package. To realize a
> smooth migration to
> /usr/share/doc/package, each package
> + added a symlink /usr/doc/package
> + that pointed to the new location of its documentation in
> + /usr/shar
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Steve Kowalik wrote:
> At 10:59 pm, Monday, August 19 2002, Colin Walters mumbled:
> > I kind of suspected so, but not having access to authoritative data I
> > didn't want to try to change two things at once. Well, here's an
> > updated patch which combines both then. I als
On Sat, 17 Aug 2002, Colin Walters wrote:
> The attached patch should mostly speak for itself. I think it's great
> that a lot of packages support DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=debug now, but if the
> program is compiled with optimization, it's very difficult to debug.
> --- debian-policy-3.5.6.1/policy.sgm
On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Santiago Vila wrote:
> retitle 69311 [PROPOSAL] Symlinks in /usr/doc not mandatory anymore.
> thanks
>
> [ I naively proposed something like this after the release of potato,
> but it was not the right time... ].
>
> Proposed patch to current policy:
>
> diff -r -u debian
On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Joey Hess wrote:
> Santiago Vila wrote:
> > We have never released "suddenly" a new stable distribution, and I don't
> > think sarge will be an exception. People have the complete lifetime of
> > woody to change habits, if they are very used to do "cd /usr/doc".
>
> zsh-folk
On Sat, 20 Jul 2002, Joey Hess wrote:
> So would anyone murder me if the code in debhelper to make postinst
> scripts manage /usr/doc links just went missing? This would of course
> cause the link to go away when packages were upgraded to versions built
> with the new debhelper. Since we'll be rec
Hi Anthony,
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
> There are two flaws with this proposal. One is that it's completely
> wrongheaded to declare something RC when a significant number of packages
> don't do it already.
Yes, I agree with this now.
> The other is that it
Hi Brian!
On Sun, 13 May 2001, Brian White wrote:
> There is new Debian policy regarding the use of "cgi-bin" in web servers.
> The basic issue is that many webmasters expect to have this directory
> available for their own use and not have it taken over by the system to be
> used by the various
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > Must == have to do this
> > Should == we recommend you do this
> > May == we think it is a good idea, but is not always possible/sane/etc
>
> These aren't the RFC definitions though. MAY simply means it's
> optional, it doesn't have to be a good i
On Sun, 01 Apr 2001, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> Hi Taral!
>
> You wrote:
>
> > It should most certainly be debian/rulz, not rulez.
>
> Why not make it d3b1an/rulz, then?
d3b14n/ru|z seems like a good choice.
yours,
pe
On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, Branden Robinson wrote:
> --- policy.sgml Sun Mar 25 01:34:33 2001
> +++ policy.sgml.x-support Sun Mar 25 01:55:07 2001
> @@ -5946,14 +5946,15 @@
> Programs for the X Window System
>
>
> - Programs that may be configured with support for the X Wi
Hi Julian!
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote:
>
> > Package: debian-policy
> > Version: 3.5.2.0
> > Severity: wishlist
> >
> > Policy should now require packages to specify build time dependencies
> &
> If you'd like to change this, please file wishlist bugs against packages
> that don't have Build-Depends, with the correct Build-Depends: line. Once
> we're at, say, 90% of packages (another 1618 packages away) supporting
> Build-Depends, then it'd be a good idea to revisit this, but until then,
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.5.2.0
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Policy should now require packages to specify build time dependencies
> (i.e., packages which require ... MUST specify...)
seconded.
yours,
Hi Sean!
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> So, perhaps we should drop the bar a little. If your package is not at least
> 3.x.x, it gets held.
make it so
yours,
peter
--
PGP signed and encrypted
Hi,
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> I agree in general with what you are saying. However the language is still
> poor. I suspect that section 7 is really trying to say -- 'A source package
> may
> require a binary package to be installed in order to build correctly. If it
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.1.0, 2001-02-15
| 2.4.2. Package relationships
|
|
| Source packages should specify which binary packages they require to
^^
| be installed or not to be installed in order to build correctly.
|
Hi Jim!
On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Jim Lynch wrote:
> Hi :)
>
> I have no objection to telling some fact to any maint...
The problem is that dh_make (and not debhelper - sorry JoeyH) creates
a sample file which
| refers to the Free Documentation License by the file name:
Hi Jim!
Susan wrote in the mail you replied to:
| OK, then I guess you should forward this report to debhelper.
and in the original report:
| The debhelper script dh_make inserts a sample manpage.sgml.ex file into
| a new debian directory when a package is being built. This sample file
| refers
Hi Torsten!
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 16, 2000 at 01:32:26PM -0400, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > * Submit-Bugs-To
> > An mailto URL to which bugs should be submitted. (It's a URL so
> > we can support other types of BTSes at a later date if needed)
> > * Subm
Hi!
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Wouldn't it be nicer to just put the Origin file in each package,
> and to have a database which maps origin -> submit-bugs-to and
> submit-bugs-style?
The style Wichert chose has the advantage that everybody can
create correct .debs. I doubt that
25 matches
Mail list logo
