On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 01:12:47PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 10:54:48AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > What *is* reasonable is to say "I don't yet have time to deal with
> > this."
> >
> > So the source dependencies are a MUST, but we don't yet file RC bugs,
> > probably
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 02:12:04PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 10:54:48AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > > [So I guess that we stick with debian/rules MUST be makefiles as
> > > well!]
> > Eh? Until there's an accepted amendment to c
Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 10:54:48AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > [So I guess that we stick with debian/rules MUST be makefiles as
> > well!]
>
> Eh? Until there's an accepted amendment to change it, yes.
Heh, when did that happen? That has never been obligatory
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 10:54:48AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 12:01:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 11:01:53PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > > I just checked: in policy 3.1.1.1, they were a MUST (section 2.4.2).
> > > I don't know when that
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 10:54:48AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> What *is* reasonable is to say "I don't yet have time to deal with
> this."
>
> So the source dependencies are a MUST, but we don't yet file RC bugs,
> probably not even normal bugs against missing source dependencies.
We can partia
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 12:01:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 11:01:53PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > I just checked: in policy 3.1.1.1, they were a MUST (section 2.4.2).
> > I don't know when that got lost. So we'll go back to it.
>
> Must/Should/May only had given
On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 11:01:53PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> I just checked: in policy 3.1.1.1, they were a MUST (section 2.4.2).
> I don't know when that got lost. So we'll go back to it.
Must/Should/May only had given meanings in 3.2.1.0, so it was an accepted
amendment to change that must
On 28-Feb-2001 Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote:
>
>> Package: debian-policy
>> Version: 3.5.2.0
>> Severity: wishlist
>>
>> Policy should now require packages to specify build time dependencies
>> (i.e., packages which require ... MUST specify...)
>
> I just chec
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.5.2.0
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Policy should now require packages to specify build time dependencies
> (i.e., packages which require ... MUST specify...)
I just checked: in policy 3.1.1.1, they were a MUST (section 2
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 12:16:56AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 12:59:14PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > But Anthony does have a good point, though.
>
> ...which I'm still not sure people are grokking.
>
> Here's some more explanation:
I agree with everything you've po
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 12:59:14PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> But Anthony does have a good point, though.
...which I'm still not sure people are grokking.
Here's some more explanation:
1) Policy is meant to document existing practice. If Build-depends are a
neat new feature that can be u
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 03:26:08PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On 20010225T131051+, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > Of course, with the question of empty dependency lists, there's a
> > problem
>
> Indeed, and I'd like that to be explicitly addressed somewhere.
But it's essentially imposs
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 01:14:47PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> I make this point from self-interest. I have a few packages like
> that, and I'd prefer not to get one misguided bugreport after
> another (not to mention Lintian warnings) about them not having
> Build-Depends.
>
> So please ke
On 20010225T131051+, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Of course, with the question of empty dependency lists, there's a
> problem
Indeed, and I'd like that to be explicitly addressed somewhere.
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 12:59:14PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > I want to see the diff to policy. It's possible to wreck this whole
> > thijng with careless wording.
>
> 2.4.2. Package relationships
>
>
> -Source packages should specify which binary packages t
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 02:40:24PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On 20010225T141840+0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > On 20010225T014140+, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > > Policy should now require packages to specify build time dependencies
> > > (i.e., packages which require ... MUST
On 20010225T141840+0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On 20010225T014140+, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > Policy should now require packages to specify build time dependencies
> > (i.e., packages which require ... MUST specify...)
> >
> > Build time dependencies have been in policy for 18 months
On 20010225T014140+, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Policy should now require packages to specify build time dependencies
> (i.e., packages which require ... MUST specify...)
>
> Build time dependencies have been in policy for 18 months already.
Seconded.
BTW, this was how I intended it when I wrote
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 08:39:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> If you want packages to support build-depends, start filing wishlist bugs
> against packages that don't have build-depends. If you want to actually
> do something particularly useful, work out what each package's build
> dependencies
On Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 07:59:17PM -1000, Brian Russo wrote:
> I can't speak first hand, but only from some of the bug reports I've
> received occasionally, and I think this makes the auto builder's job
> just at least a bit easier (having buil-depends)
Certainly.
> I think it should be MUST for
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 01:15:29PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 01:04:47PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 01:41:40AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > > Policy should now require packages to specify build time dependencies
> > > (i.e., packages which
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 04:12:33AM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> > If you'd like to change this, please file wishlist bugs against packages
> > that don't have Build-Depends, with the correct Build-Depends: line. Once
> > we're at, say, 90% of packages (another 1618 packages away) supporting
> >
Hi Julian!
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote:
>
> > Package: debian-policy
> > Version: 3.5.2.0
> > Severity: wishlist
> >
> > Policy should now require packages to specify build time dependencies
> > (i.e., packages which require ... MUST sp
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 01:04:47PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 01:41:40AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > Policy should now require packages to specify build time dependencies
> > (i.e., packages which require ... MUST specify...)
> I object to this; in sid there are 4284
> If you'd like to change this, please file wishlist bugs against packages
> that don't have Build-Depends, with the correct Build-Depends: line. Once
> we're at, say, 90% of packages (another 1618 packages away) supporting
> Build-Depends, then it'd be a good idea to revisit this, but until then,
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 01:41:40AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.5.2.0
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Policy should now require packages to specify build time dependencies
> (i.e., packages which require ... MUST specify...)
I object to this; in sid there are 4284 so
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Policy should now require packages to specify build time dependencies
> (i.e., packages which require ... MUST specify...)
seconded.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In
* Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20010225 01:41]:
> Policy should now require packages to specify build time dependencies
> (i.e., packages which require ... MUST specify...)
Seconded.
--
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgpMyoivaS0ld.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.5.2.0
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Policy should now require packages to specify build time dependencies
> (i.e., packages which require ... MUST specify...)
seconded.
yours,
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.2.0
Severity: wishlist
Policy should now require packages to specify build time dependencies
(i.e., packages which require ... MUST specify...)
Build time dependencies have been in policy for 18 months already.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
30 matches
Mail list logo
