On Thu, Oct 28, 1999 at 11:10:24AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Ooops! You are right.
The earth shakes under my feet. Maybe those millenial apocalypse freaks
were right. Santiago speaking these words HAS to mean the eschaton is near.
--
G. Branden Robinson | Human beings rarely
On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> No. "depend" includes Pre-Depends, [...]
Ooops! You are right.
--
"cdfdd1fe6bf1e8b667d6507e233f92ae" (a truly random sig)
> On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Julian Gilbey wrote:
>
> > How about:
> >
> >Packages may not depend on packages with lower priority values
> >(excluding build-time dependencies). If this should happen, one of
> >the priority values will have to be adapted.
>
> Maybe the "fully correct wordin
On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> How about:
>
>Packages may not depend on packages with lower priority values
>(excluding build-time dependencies). If this should happen, one of
>the priority values will have to be adapted.
Maybe the "fully correct wording" would be:
Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Why change?
> >
> > Would it be OK for the source of mount to depend on ssh? (just a realy
> > extreme example)
>
> No: ssh is not in main (it's in non-US/non-free at present, although
> it may well end up in non-US/main very soon). See policy 2.1.
On Tue, Oct 26, 1999 at 07:28:31PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> Source packages should also not depend on other packages with higher
> priority, otherwise there could arise a situation where you can´t
> build a package because you can´t build another.
This is not useful. Priority rating for so
Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> >
> > > Given that there are now two sorts of depends, I am changing the
> > > paragraph:
> > >
> > >Packages may not depend on packages with lower priority values. If
> > >this should happen, one o
> Why change?
>
> Would it be OK for the source of mount to depend on ssh? (just a realy
> extreme example)
No: ssh is not in main (it's in non-US/non-free at present, although
it may well end up in non-US/main very soon). See policy 2.1.2 for
the definition of the `main' section.
> Source pac
> On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Julian Gilbey wrote:
>
> > Given that there are now two sorts of depends, I am changing the
> > paragraph:
> >
> >Packages may not depend on packages with lower priority values. If
> >this should happen, one of the priority values will have to be
> >adapted.
> >
Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Given that there are now two sorts of depends, I am changing the
> paragraph:
>
>Packages may not depend on packages with lower priority values. If
>this should happen, one of the priority values will have to be
>adapted.
>
> to read:
>
>
On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Given that there are now two sorts of depends, I am changing the
> paragraph:
>
>Packages may not depend on packages with lower priority values. If
>this should happen, one of the priority values will have to be
>adapted.
>
> to read:
>
>
On Tue, Oct 26, 1999 at 14:46:03 +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Are there any objections?
This is not an objection, but I wish there were slightly more accurate term
than "binary package", because some binary packages don't contain binaries
(e.g. just data and/or scripts). "binary package" could be
Given that there are now two sorts of depends, I am changing the
paragraph:
Packages may not depend on packages with lower priority values. If
this should happen, one of the priority values will have to be
adapted.
to read:
Binary packages may not depend on binary packages with lower
13 matches
Mail list logo
