On Sat, Jan 31, 1998 at 12:09:10AM +0100, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> On 30 Jan 1998, James Troup wrote:
>
> > Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > As long as the binary packages `Depend:' (or `Recommend:') the
> > > package containing /usr/doc/source-package and they install a
On Sat, Jan 31, 1998 at 12:36:25AM -0800, Guy Maor wrote:
> > IMHO this will lead to spurious Depends: being added to packages
> > simply to satisfy 5.6.
>
> That would the tail wagging the dog. Packages which already depend on
> a sibling package don't need an additional copy of the copyright.
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> IMHO this will lead to spurious Depends: being added to packages
> simply to satisfy 5.6.
That would the tail wagging the dog. Packages which already depend on
a sibling package don't need an additional copy of the copyright. I
don't think maintainers w
On 30 Jan 1998, James Troup wrote:
> Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > As long as the binary packages `Depend:' (or `Recommend:') the
> > package containing /usr/doc/source-package and they install a
> > symlink /usr/doc/binary-package this solution is fine with me.
>
> IMHO th
Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As long as the binary packages `Depend:' (or `Recommend:') the
> package containing /usr/doc/source-package and they install a
> symlink /usr/doc/binary-package this solution is fine with me.
IMHO this will lead to spurious Depends: being added to p
On Wed, 28 Jan 1998, Drake Diedrich wrote:
[snip]
>I think (know in my case) that many packages that came from the same
> source package only put the copyright in /usr/doc/source-package, rather
> than in every /usr/doc/binary-package. Perhaps the policy could be
> amended to either permit /u
Drake Diedrich writes:
> Perhaps the policy could be
> amended to either permit /usr/doc/source-package or suggest putting in
> symlinks from /usr/doc/binary-package to the common
> /usr/doc/source-package (as already done by tetex, libc6, several -dev and
> lib*g, and xemacs20).
Something
On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Yann Dirson wrote:
> I see that lintian lists the "comerr2g" package as having no copyright
> file.
>
> There is one. However, I placed it in the /usr/doc/comerr2 directory,
> as it seemed to me more "friendly" than having this evil "g" in the
> dir name.
>
> I understand th
On Tue, Jan 27, 1998 at 03:04:53PM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
>
> My question is: does anybody think it would be a good idea to somewhat
> relax the policy in this respect, by allowing a lib-package with a "g"
> in its name to have a docdir without this "g" ?
I don't ;). It would be more confusing
On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Yann Dirson wrote:
[snip]
> My question is: does anybody think it would be a good idea to somewhat
> relax the policy in this respect, by allowing a lib-package with a "g"
> in its name to have a docdir without this "g" ?
Before discussing any policy proposals, here are the r
I see that lintian lists the "comerr2g" package as having no copyright
file.
There is one. However, I placed it in the /usr/doc/comerr2 directory,
as it seemed to me more "friendly" than having this evil "g" in the
dir name.
I understand that the policy states "Text documentation should be
instal
11 matches
Mail list logo
