gt; usertags 628174 + issue
Bug#628174: debian-policy: Link §7.1 (relationship fields) to §11.1
architecture specification strings
There were no usertags set.
Usertags are now: issue.
> usertags 628174 + informative
Bug#628174: debian-policy: Link §7.1 (relationship fields) to §11.1
architecture
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
limit package debian-policy
retitle 628174 'debian-policy: Moving the syntax for architecture restrictions
from §11 to §7 or §5?'
usertags 628174 + issue
usertags 628174 + informative
severity 628174 wishlist
thanks
Le Sun, May 29, 2011 at 03:53:54PM +0200,
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 11:08:38AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:18:17PM +0100, Stuart Prescott a écrit :
> >
> > Currently, §7.1 refers to the archtecture restriction syntax and
> > architecture
> > wildards without defining what the syntax for these restrictions is.
Le Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:18:17PM +0100, Stuart Prescott a écrit :
>
> Currently, §7.1 refers to the archtecture restriction syntax and architecture
> wildards without defining what the syntax for these restrictions is. The
> syntax for these clauses is defined in §11.1 (§11.1.1 in particular) bu
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.2.0
Severity: normal
Currently, §7.1 refers to the archtecture restriction syntax and architecture
wildards without defining what the syntax for these restrictions is. The
syntax for these clauses is defined in §11.1 (§11.1.1 in particular) but is not
linked to
At 20:20 +0200 1999-07-26, Matthias Klose wrote:
I cannot follow the rationale for the compatibility argument. Most
Debian packages are built without an explicit architecture
string. For most of these packages this doesn't matter, because the
gnu build architecture is only used in error and help
Some questions and remarks to the ...
> 5.1. Architecture specification strings
> ---
> If a program needs to specify an _architecture specification string_
> in some place, the following format ha
7 matches
Mail list logo
