> "Steve" == Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Steve> On 09-Sep-00, 02:57 (CDT), Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> >>"Chris" == Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
Chris> Actually, since policy is already available on-line, it's quite
Chris
>>"Steve" == Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Steve> On 09-Sep-00, 02:57 (CDT), Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>"Chris" == Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
Chris> Actually, since policy is already available on-line, it's quite
Chris> possible that many
On 09-Sep-00, 02:57 (CDT), Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>"Chris" == Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Chris> Actually, since policy is already available on-line, it's quite
> Chris> possible that many debian developers *don't* have the policy package
> Chris> insta
On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 02:57:23AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Chris" == Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Chris> Actually, since policy is already available on-line, it's quite
> Chris> possible that many debian developers *don't* have the policy package
> Chris> installed.
>
>>"Chris" == Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> Actually, since policy is already available on-line, it's quite
Chris> possible that many debian developers *don't* have the policy package
Chris> installed.
Hmm. Don't we all have task-debian-dev installed?
manoj
--
On Sat, Sep 02, 2000 at 12:49:21PM +0200, Arthur Korn wrote:
> BTW: why is it even a seperate package? IMO the build-essential
> list should be included with ether the debian-policy package or
> the packaging-manual. This way every debian developer has this
> lists in a sensible place already inst
On 2902T124921+0200, Arthur Korn wrote:
> BTW: why is it even a seperate package? IMO the build-essential
> list should be included with ether the debian-policy package or
> the packaging-manual. This way every debian developer has this
> lists in a sensible place already installed.
There were
Hello.
Manoj Srivastava schrieb:
> >>"Julian" == Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Rather than having an old, potentially outdated, and thus
> misleading, note in policy, would it not be better to instead improve
> the visibility if the build depnds package and arrange to have t
On 2902T005640-0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> misleading, note in policy, would it not be better to instead improve
> the visibility if the build depnds package and arrange to have the
> updated contents present on the web page?
The web page part is already arranged, see Developer's Corner
>>"Julian" == Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Julian> On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 01:06:30PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
>> Which is just a stupid pain in the ass. I had to track through three
>> different references and finally install the "build-depends" package to
>> find out what I
On 2901T104626-0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> find. The policy manual says look in build-essential. The control
> file for Build-essential says look in policy manual
The policy manual says look for the *informational* list in
build-essential. build-essential says look for the *definition* in
On 31-Aug-00, 12:43 (CDT), Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 08:29:30PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > > > Which is just a stupid pain in the ass. I had to track through three
> > > > different references and finally install the "build-depends" package to
On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 08:29:30PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > > Which is just a stupid pain in the ass. I had to track through three
> > > different references and finally install the "build-depends" package to
> > > find out what I could leave out of by "Build-Depends" stanza. It wou
On 2830T234249+0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 01:06:30PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > Which is just a stupid pain in the ass. I had to track through three
> > different references and finally install the "build-depends" package to
> > find out what I could leave out o
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 01:06:30PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> Which is just a stupid pain in the ass. I had to track through three
> different references and finally install the "build-depends" package to
> find out what I could leave out of by "Build-Depends" stanza. It would
> *much* easier
Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I think the tie has come for us to reexamine the packaging
> manual, and extract the things that ought to be policy, and let the
> other bits go to the dpkg maintianers for update.
Very much agreed!
Wichert.
--
_
>>"Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joey> Well that wording has been there forever, so this cannot be a recent
Joey> change in policy, though it could be a change in the way some people
Joey> interpret policy.
My impression has always been that the packaging manual was
p
On 2829T010700+0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Josip Rodin wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 06:23:52PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > > The packaging manually actually says it is a makefile:
> >
> > Yes, and that makes it policy.
>
> No it doesn't.
Interesting. I seem to re
Previously Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 06:23:52PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > The packaging manually actually says it is a makefile:
>
> Yes, and that makes it policy.
No it doesn't.
Wichert.
--
_
/
On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 12:22:44AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Perhaps my logic is flawed; anyway, even if it's not official, the packaging
> manual should be changed to say that non-makefile debian/rules files are
> allowed.
In this case, you need to replace it with "machine-independant scripts"
Josip Rodin wrote:
> The Policy says:
>
> This manual does _not_ describe the technical mechanisms involved in
> package creation, installation, and removal. This information can be
> found in the _Debian Packaging Manual_ and the _Debian System
> Administrators' Manual_.
>
>
On Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 03:03:45PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > The packaging manually actually says it is a makefile:
> >
> > Yes, and that makes it policy.
> >
> > > I don't know if Manoj succeeded in making the packaging man a part of the
> > > policy.
> >
> > That's the way it is, if I'm no
Josip Rodin wrote:
> > The packaging manually actually says it is a makefile:
>
> Yes, and that makes it policy.
>
> > I don't know if Manoj succeeded in making the packaging man a part of the
> > policy.
>
> That's the way it is, if I'm not mistaken.
This is news to me; when did it happen?
--
On Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 06:23:52PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > Which is rather unwarranted... all that should be necessary is a executable
> > file that can act differently based on the first command-line argument
> > passed to it. Whether it is makefile, a shell or a Perl script, or even a
On Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 05:59:11PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Which is rather unwarranted... all that should be necessary is a executable
> file that can act differently based on the first command-line argument
> passed to it. Whether it is makefile, a shell or a Perl script, or even a
> compiled
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 05:59:11PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Which is rather unwarranted... all that should be necessary is a executable
> file that can act differently based on the first command-line argument
> passed to it. Whether it is makefile, a shell or a Perl script, or even a
> comp
On Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 06:53:47PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > Hmm, the dependency on make is flawed, as it is perfectly possible to
> > write debian/rules that is a perl script, for example.
>
> If you find a flaw in my application of the criteria, bug reports against
> build-essenti
> If someone wants to create another build daemon (for i386!) and can't
> be bothered to install debhelper, I personally am not going to feel
> sorry for them.
FYI, the build daemons assume debhelper is build essential just to
preserve sanity. That does not make build-deps any less important,
howe
On 2828T172935+0200, Paul Slootman wrote:
> > An informational list can be found in package `build-essential'.
> > (NOTE: Don't file bugs about debhelper against this package. They will
> > be summarily closed. If you feel that the criteria for selecting
> > build-essential packages are wrong
On Mon 28 Aug 2000, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On 2828T153322+0200, Paul Slootman wrote:
> > anyway. BTW, what is the list of "build essential packages"? I'm
> > assuming that gcc libc6-dev etc. don't need to be put in. However,
> > this isn't discussed in the packaging manual at section
30 matches
Mail list logo
