On Tue, Apr 06, 1999 at 08:51:07AM -0600, Gordon Matzigkeit wrote:
> > Brian May writes:
>
> >> Why should all ports have to release at the same time? Why should
> >> we not allow different ports to depend on different versions of
> >> the same package?
>
> BM> So, you want to get rid of
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 05, 1999 at 04:08:49PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > I'm now looking for seconds for this proposal.
why?
On 05-Apr-99, 05:52 (CDT), Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> These packages are cross-compilers and the paths they use are
> currently derived from the cross-compiler guidelines in gcc's INSTALL
> document (by just replacing /usr/local by /usr).
I tend to agree on with Santiago and Marti
Santiago Vila wrote:
> No large software packages should use a direct subdirectory under the
> /usr hierarchy. [...]
>
> I think that a cross-compiler is not a "large" software package like the X
> Window System.
I think you may be reading too much into the word "large". The complete
paragaph
On 6 Apr 1999, Greg Stark wrote:
> Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 05, 1999 at 04:08:49PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > I'm now looking for seconds for this proposal.
>
> why?
According to FHS, /usr/doc should be empty in the long run.
This change has be
On Mon, Apr 05, 1999 at 03:46:09PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> First, we should forbid the use of the hardcoded install-info's --infodir
> option in all maintainer scripts. This is really evil, because it does not
> allow us to change the location of the index file in a centralized place,
> i.
Thanks for answering!
On Wed, 7 Apr 1999, Fabrizio Polacco wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 05, 1999 at 03:46:09PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> >
> > First, we should forbid the use of the hardcoded install-info's --infodir
> > option in all maintainer scripts. This is really evil, because it does not
> >
On 6 Apr 1999, Gordon Matzigkeit wrote:
>Here is a possible way of specifying the information:
>
>Anything that has a `|' in its dependencies means that there is more
>than one kind of binary package, so, say the binary packages were
>different depending on the kernel you had installed:
>
>Depends
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> BM> Just a comment: In the source code for each dependancy (eg CPU)
> BM> you would have a specification, ie something like:
>
> BM> - the source code MUST be recompiled. eg for another CPU.
> BM> - the source code does not have to be recompiled, but stil
> Brian May writes:
>> Anything that has a `|' in its dependencies means that there is
>> more than one kind of binary package, so, say the binary packages
>> were different depending on the kernel you had installed:
BM> I think | is aready used to mean "or"? or is it "||"?
It's "||", yo
10 matches
Mail list logo
