Maytham Alsudany writes:
> +``Static-Built-Using``
> +~~
> +
> +This ``Static-Built-Using`` field must list source packages with an
> +"exactly equal" ("=") version relation, which had their contents (like
> +source code or data) incorporated into the binary package during the
Jeremy Bícha writes:
> Therefore, I used the format 0~20200916-1 for fonts-noto-color-emoji
Re-reading
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-version
I wonder if we couldn't make an argument that "upstream_version" is
empty, which actually better reflect that there
"Diederik de Haas" writes:
> On Sun Dec 1, 2024 at 1:09 PM CET, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> "Diederik de Haas" writes:
>>
>> >> In case you make more than one snapshot per day, you can append a
>> >> snapshot number after the date, e.
"Diederik de Haas" writes:
>> In case you make more than one snapshot per day, you can append a
>> snapshot number after the date, e.g. 0.0~git20130606.2.b00ec39-1.
>> This should rarely be necessary.
>
> If a rule is proposed to Policy, then it needs to account for such a
> situation and should
Otto Kekäläinen writes:
>> The commit hash. 007c9af.
>
> OK, thanks.
>
> I disagree here - to me the git commit hash is the single most
> important identifier for the software version if there are no actual
> releases.
FWIW, I used to believe the same but this changed my mind -- gnulib is a
roll
Maytham Alsudany writes:
> In early 2022, Guillem added support for a new Static-Built-Using field to
> dpkg, encouraging packagers to use it over Built-Using to specify
> statically-linked dependencies [2]. The commit message states the following:
>
> This field mimics the previous Built-Using
Would it make sense to change this to use an inclusive list of permitted
characters instead? How about checking the field names that is in use
today, and construct a regexp of permitted symbols out of that?
Starting point: [A-Za-z][A-Za-z0-9-_]*
/Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Package: developers-reference
Hi! The bug title suggestion for package removal requests on this page:
https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.en.html#removing-packages
is rendered (at least in firefox on debian) as:
The bug title should be in the form RM:package
Note th
Russ Allbery writes:
>>
>>Libraries should be built with threading support and to be
>>thread-safe if the library supports this.
>>
>
> Yes, that's what I'm proposing -- at a guess, you may have misread the
> diff?
>
>>> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
>>> index
Russ Allbery writes:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>> Kurt Roeckx writes:
>
>>> So it looks to me that _REENTRANT is only used to make some functions
>>> like getlogin_r available.
>
>> I believe that's correct, and the discussion at the last DebConf reached
>> the same conclusion. I think this bit i
Roger Leigh writes:
> I think it is a problem extending to all virtual packages, and I would
> like to see a more general solution which is applicable to all. It
> might be worth revisiting past discussion, for example this thread:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/08/msg01281.html
>
Fabian Greffrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.8.0.1
> Severity: minor
>
> Hi,
>
> Policy currently reads:
>
>> 8.2 Shared library support files
> [...]
>> Run-time support programs that use the shared library but are not
>> required for the library to function
Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 08:23:19AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>
>> Thanks. But does LinuxThreads need -D_REENTRANT today? The links to
>> the gnulib list I gave suggested that it isn't necessary, but without
>&
Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 09:28:03AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 08:22:10PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
>> >> Package: debian-poli
Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 08:22:10PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
>> Package: debian-policy
>> Version: 3.7.3.0
>> Severity: normal
>>
>> You must specify the gcc option `-D_REENTRANT' when building a library
>> (either static or shared) to make the li
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Giacomo A Catenazzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I think we should add also the license version in the first paragraph,
>> as is stated in the second part, not to confuse users.
>
>> + license, the GNU GPL (v. 2), the GNU LGPL (v. 2 and v. 2.1),
16 matches
Mail list logo
