Hello,
On Fri 15 Feb 2019 at 08:59PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Use of the Build-Conflicts field is currently mostly optional, but Ian
> Jackson and I have been working on text for Debian Policy that would
> require its use in certain cases. See #824495 for the discussion.
>
> There are two ca
On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 12:00 PM Sean Whitton wrote:
> Use of the Build-Conflicts field is currently mostly optional, but Ian
> Jackson and I have been working on text for Debian Policy that would
> require its use in certain cases. See #824495 for the discussion.
Personally, the main RC use-cas
On 2/16/19 7:08 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Friday, February 15, 2019 08:59:41 PM Sean Whitton wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Use of the Build-Conflicts field is currently mostly optional, but Ian
>> Jackson and I have been working on text for Debian Policy that would
>> require its use in certain case
Sean Whitton writes:
> Use of the Build-Conflicts field is currently mostly optional, but Ian
> Jackson and I have been working on text for Debian Policy that would
> require its use in certain cases. See #824495 for the discussion.
>
> There are two cases which we think that everyone would agree
On Friday, February 15, 2019 08:59:41 PM Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Use of the Build-Conflicts field is currently mostly optional, but Ian
> Jackson and I have been working on text for Debian Policy that would
> require its use in certain cases. See #824495 for the discussion.
>
> There ar
Hello,
Use of the Build-Conflicts field is currently mostly optional, but Ian
Jackson and I have been working on text for Debian Policy that would
require its use in certain cases. See #824495 for the discussion.
There are two cases which we think that everyone would agree that there
is a bug, b
6 matches
Mail list logo
