>>"Jason" == Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jason> No, you are confusing dpkg's goals with APT's high level goals, they are
Jason> seperate. dpkg has no notion of a target state, it is just a dumb
install
Jason> tool, so it is making the best judgements it can, assuming something
On 30 Sep 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> But only in the interim, correct? After the installation
> process is all done, the dependencies are all satisfied. During
> installation dependencies are broken, yes. Unless I am mistaken, dpkg
> tries to go from a state where the dependencies a
>>"Jason" == Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jason> On 30 Sep 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Jason> (Reading the dpkg bug lists.. though perhaps it is busted - are we going
Jason> to document bugs in dpkg in this manual? #2041)
No. Wichert is taking over what once was the p
On 30 Sep 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Yet another version is up at
> http://master.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/new-packaging.txt
> Ummm, could you propose corrected wording, then? Are you
> saying that pre depends and conflicts can now prevent a package being
> on the system in an
Hi,
Yet another version is up at
http://master.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/new-packaging.txt
>>"Jason" == Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jason> AFIAK this is an error:
Jason> All but `Pre-Depends' (discussed below) take effect
Jason> _only_ when a package is to b
>>"Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joey> Um, I'm not talking about the parameters passed to the scripts or their
Joey> ordering. I'm talking about asides documenting internal dpkg
Joey> limitations, that should not be put into policy.
I agree with you in principle. In t
Hi,
>>"Adam" == Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Adam> Shouldn't the copyright be updated to something more current
Adam> than 1996? The license is located at
Adam> /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL, not in /usr/doc.
The date has been updated, I'm updating the location. This is
a
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> > > Joey> think you should point to that RFC in that section BTW, even
> > > Joey> though control file format varies from it in several ways.
> > >
> > > Color me puzzled. If we are so different from t
On 19 Sep 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I have put an initial draft of the new package related policy
> manual on http://master.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/new-packaging.txt. I
> have tried to trim tis down to include only stuff I think ought to be
> in policy, using the follo
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Joey> But my point is that this is an implementation detail. I can
> Joey> envision systems that have no point of return, and can always
> Joey> be rolled back (think journaling filesystems).
>
> I guess I do not agree. At this point, the details of
> mainainer
On 2920T160536-0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > We're not really that different. The rfc allows any line to be wrapped,
> > we do not.
>
> Erm, I'd consider any parser which does not allow this to be broken..
So would I, but since the spec says what it says, it allows people to
write Build-De
>>"Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joey> But my point is that this is an implementation detail. I can
Joey> envision systems that have no point of return, and can always
Joey> be rolled back (think journaling filesystems).
I guess I do not agree. At this point, the detai
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
> I don't know about the actual code, but that's what the packaging manual
> says and I've never actually seen anyone wrap eg, a depends line (though
> I have a few I'd like to wrap..)
I have, long ago, and I think I've encouraged people to do it..
Can't
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > We're not really that different. The rfc allows any line to be wrapped,
> > we do not.
>
> Erm, I'd consider any parser which does not allow this to be broken..
I don't know about the actual code, but that's what the packaging manual
says and I've never actually seen an
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Joey> think you should point to that RFC in that section BTW, even
> > Joey> though control file format varies from it in several ways.
> >
> > Color me puzzled. If we are so different from teh RFC, why
> > should we mention it?
>
> We're not rea
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Joey> the line. Horizontal whitespace (spaces and tabs) may occur before or
> Joey> after the value and is ignored there; it is conventional to put a
> Joey> single space after the colon.
>
> Joey> Is the space before the colon truely optional? I expect
> Joey>
On 19 Sep 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I have put an initial draft of the new package related policy
> manual on http://master.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/new-packaging.txt. I
> have tried to trim tis down to include only stuff I think ought to be
AFIAK this is an error:
All but `Pre
>>"Zed" == Zed Pobre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Zed> I think the confusion lies in the "Horizontal whitespace" line;
Zed> whitespace before the colon is certainly whitespace before the value.
Zed> To make it clearer, perhaps it should read "may occur immediately
Zed> before or after the v
>>"Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joey> I've seen some typos and typographical errors but I won't
Joey> bother to detail them at this point.
I have now run the manual thriguh ispell, so things should be
better. A new version resides, as usual, at the location:
http://m
I've seen some typos and typographical errors but I won't bother to
detail them at this point.
Each paragraph is a series of fields and values; each field consists
of a name, followed by a colon and the value. It ends at the end of
the line. Horizontal whitespace (spaces and tabs)
Hi folks,
I have put an initial draft of the new package related policy
manual on http://master.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/new-packaging.txt. I
have tried to trim tis down to include only stuff I think ought to be
in policy, using the following informal criteria:
---
21 matches
Mail list logo
