Keita Maehara writes:
> > * No binary-section manpages (mainly 1, 6, 8) in `manpages' and
> > `manpages-' packages, but in their relevant binary packages.
>
> Is this applied to translated version of Debian-specific manpages?
> Namely, translated version of dpkg(8) should go into package dpk
Keita Maehara writes:
> From: Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Chosing release goals for slink
> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 12:36:53 +0200 (CEST)
>
> > * No binary-section manpages (mainly 1, 6, 8) in `manpages' and
> > `manpages-' packages, but in
> Except dpkg is written in C, only dselect uses C++.
I was thinking about the package dpkg, not the binary of the same
name... But I hope my intentions with the example were clear :-)
Roman
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAI
> I was assuming all of the Debian dev packages would be installed on
> these build hosts.
These are myriads, too :-), and the source dependencies of package
aren't so uniform... For example, some packages need specific versions
(happened with gimp/lingtk-dev), depend on emacs being present,
depe
Roman Hodek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just uploading the stuff might result in major desaster... A
> hypothectical example: dpkg uses C++,
Except dpkg is written in C, only dselect uses C++. (If that was the
``hypothetical'' part of your example, excuse my pedantry.)
--
James
~Yawn And Wal
Roman Hodek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Not even that... you also need some kind of source dependencies,
> except you want to install the whole of Debian on the build machine,
> plus a bit more (e.g. Tcl/Tk sources etc.)
I was assuming all of the Debian dev packages would be installed on these
> Such automation (silly as it is) would be absolutely trivial to
> implement,
Not even that... you also need some kind of source dependencies,
except you want to install the whole of Debian on the build machine,
plus a bit more (e.g. Tcl/Tk sources etc.)
I'm currently trying to set up a semi-au
Hi,
>>"Martin" == Martin Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Martin> James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I think your ad hominems are unjustified and unnecessary, Martin.
Martin> Hehe, maybe give credit to manoj for this line. :)
Huh?
manoj
--
Man shall never reach
Martin Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (btw severity "important-ish" means severity normal to the BTS - see
> #24255)
Duh; I'm well aware of that, I used it for that reason. Please stop
being so damn condescending and also stop telling me what to do; I'll
do what I want, not what you want
Martin Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Martin Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Yes, but not all of them, and not to the extent that you could call
> > > it full unattended (NB not unsupervised) autocompiling.
> >
> > Rubbish.
>
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Martin Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Yes, but not all of them, and not to the extent that you could call
> > it full unattended (NB not unsupervised) autocompiling.
>
> Rubbish.
Would you like to elaborate? Are the packages automatically pu
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think your ad hominems are unjustified and unnecessary, Martin.
Hehe, maybe give credit to manoj for this line. :)
> > You say we now have people helping Guy, who are they?
>
> Richard Braakman and myself.
Fine, well now that Incoming is clear, how a
Hi,
>>"Marco" == Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marco> On Jul 11, Marco Budde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> We should add PGP or GPG support for dpkg, so that we can include a
>> signature in the deb packages themselves.
Marco> No, we shouldn't do that because we must have an easy
On Jul 11, Marco Budde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>We should add PGP or GPG support for dpkg, so that we can include a
>signature in the deb packages themselves.
No, we shouldn't do that because we must have an easy way to sign a
package when the PGP key is not on the same computer used to bu
Shaleh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Guy this is not a slam to you or any of the people who help you.
It clearly is.
> That said, one of the biggest problems I see facing Debian today and
> in the future is that our list of packages grows daily.
You exaggerate wildly. There are for more impor
Martin Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, but not all of them, and not to the extent that you could call
> it full unattended (NB not unsupervised) autocompiling.
Rubbish.
--
James
~Yawn And Walk North~ http://yawn.nocrew.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, ema
Martin Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > * Developer controlled automatic archive maintenance (eg removal of
> > > packages automatically after GPG signed email with list of
> > > packages to delete)
> >
> > I think this idea, as presented here, is very bad. Even with sanity
> > che
From: Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Chosing release goals for slink
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 12:36:53 +0200 (CEST)
> * No binary-section manpages (mainly 1, 6, 8) in `manpages' and
> `manpages-' packages, but in their relevant binary packages.
Is this applied to
Am 11.07.98 schrieb martin # debian.org ...
Moin Martin!
MM> * GPG as standard signature for packages
We should add PGP or GPG support for dpkg, so that we can include a
signature in the deb packages themselves.
MM> That's all that comes to mind right now, any other suggestions?
Of course. I
James Troup writes:
> Shaleh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Not to speak for him but, I take this to mean auto creation of debs
> > from a central repository. An idea that has been kicked around for
> > a while. With new machines coming RSN we should be able to have one
> > for every ar
Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The Gecko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Are the even partially possible or are these desirable goals not to be
> > attempted?
>
> My impression from recent conversations was that we were leaning in
> the direction of not having our goals coupled to
Hi,
>>"Marco" == Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> * Autocompilation support
Marco> What do we still have to do to support that?
Nothing much, I hope. Now that I am back, I shall be working
on a set of scripts that do just that (my scripts also create a CVS
tree for the sour
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Shaleh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Not to speak for him but, I take this to mean auto creation of debs
> > from a central repository. An idea that has been kicked around for
> > a while. With new machines coming RSN we should be able to have one
>
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > * Developer controlled automatic archive maintenance (eg removal of
> > packages automatically after GPG signed email with list of
> > packages to delete)
>
> I think this idea, as presented here, is very bad. Even with sanity
> checks and more tho
On Fri, Jul 10, 1998 at 03:40:21PM -0400, Shaleh wrote:
> Guy this is not a slam to you or any of the people who help you.
>
> That said, one of the biggest problems I see facing Debian today and in
> the future is that our list of packages grows daily. A ftp maintainer
> or group of them is a ne
Enrique Zanardi wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 11, 1998 at 03:50:25AM +1000, Martin Mitchell wrote:
> > * Developer controlled automatic archive maintenance (eg removal of packages
> > automatically after GPG signed email with list of packages to delete)
>
> That is a very interesting goal. Have you asked
On Sat, Jul 11, 1998 at 03:50:25AM +1000, Martin Mitchell wrote:
> Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * GPG as standard signature for packages
> * Bugs mentioned in changelog closed automatically upon package installation
> * Developer controlled automatic archive maintenance (eg removal of
On Jul 10, Martin Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>* GPG as standard signature for packages
I don't know if it will be ready. Every new release I still find new
bugs (and I haven't started using it for everiday things).
>* Autocompilation support
What do we still have to do to support that?
"Jules Bean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> * Developer controlled automatic archive maintenance (eg removal of
> >> packages automatically after GPG signed email with list of
> >> packages to delete)
> >
> > I think this idea, as presented here, is very bad. Even with sanity
> > checks an
The Gecko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Are the even partially possible or are these desirable goals not to be
> attempted?
My impression from recent conversations was that we were leaning in
the direction of not having our goals coupled to releases anymore. We
would have goals that we were work
--On Fri, Jul 10, 1998 10:13 pm +0200 "James Troup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Martin Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> That's all that comes to mind right now, any other suggestions?
>
> That we release slink before 2038 or so? These goals (the desirable
> ones, that is) aren't viab
On 10-Jul-98 James Troup wrote:
> That we release slink before 2038 or so? These goals (the desirable
> ones, that is) aren't viable if we want slink to not be the disaster
> hamm is.
Are the even partially possible or are these desirable goals not to be
attempted?
---
Shaleh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Not to speak for him but, I take this to mean auto creation of debs
> from a central repository. An idea that has been kicked around for
> a while. With new machines coming RSN we should be able to have one
> for every arch supported.
Well don't worry, while
> > * Autocompilation support
>
> Eh? That sounds suspiciously like meaningless buzz-word talk. What's
> ``autocompilation support'' please?
Not to speak for him but, I take this to mean auto creation of debs from
a central repository. An idea that has been kicked around for a while.
With new
Martin Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Developer controlled automatic archive maintenance (eg removal of
> packages automatically after GPG signed email with list of
> packages to delete)
I think this idea, as presented here, is very bad. Even with sanity
checks and more thought, I'
Guy this is not a slam to you or any of the people who help you.
That said, one of the biggest problems I see facing Debian today and in
the future is that our list of packages grows daily. A ftp maintainer
or group of them is a needed thing, but I also feel that either the
developers need to hav
> That is a very interesting goal. Have you asked Guy Maor about how doable
> is it? Some tasks will have to be done by-hand, as currently (installing
> new packages, or any package that goes to frozen or stable), but a lot of
> bugs filed against ftp.debian.org would be closed faster if we could
>
On Sat, Jul 11, 1998 at 03:50:25AM +1000, Martin Mitchell wrote:
> * Developer controlled automatic archive maintenance (eg removal of packages
> automatically after GPG signed email with list of packages to delete)
That is a very interesting goal. Have you asked Guy Maor about how doable
is it?
Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Maybe some will think it's not yet time to discuss this, but I think
> we need a central repository for ideas of what the release goals for
> slink will be.
>
> The following list is only built from what I remember to have read at
> some point, so it will
Maybe some will think it's not yet time to discuss this, but I think
we need a central repository for ideas of what the release goals for
slink will be.
The following list is only built from what I remember to have read at
some point, so it will need surely some additions. I also add some
items
40 matches
Mail list logo
