ent which
occurs when an end user runs 'apt-get install packagename' on a
not-previously-downloaded package does not constitute distribution?
Because running that command does not (typically) pull down the source
code, but it certainly does pull down the binary package - and that
loo
On 10/13/2009 02:18 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
The Wanderer writes:
The e16keyedit package used to depend on (or, rather, recommend)
the enlightenment package. It now recommends on the e16 package.
The enlightenment package has been removed from Debian, with the
justification that it has been
On 10/13/2009 11:38 AM, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009, The Wanderer wrote:
That's what I'd have thought, but I've run across a package which
does seem to do this, and the maintainer seems to consider it an
acceptable situation. Before trying to argue too much about
On 10/13/2009 09:47 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 09:37:26AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
The question itself, in its starkest form, is simple.
Under what circumstances, if any, is it considered acceptable for a
package which is installed as a dependency by the upgrade of
On 10/13/2009 11:19 AM, The Wanderer wrote:
(Also, unrelated: the Debian mailing list etiquette page says not to
CC someone on a post to the list unless specifically requested.
However, hitting Reply on a list message populates the To field only
with the previous poster's own address
On 10/13/2009 09:50 AM, sean finney wrote:
hi,
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 09:37:26AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
Under what circumstances, if any, is it considered acceptable for a
package which is installed as a dependency by the upgrade of
another package to silently break the system?
what
dered acceptable for a
package which is installed as a dependency by the upgrade of another
package to silently break the system?
--
The Wanderer
Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.
Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to d
7 matches
Mail list logo
