I'm right now working on the gnustep-base family of packages, and Lintian
does not seem to think the -dbg package is right:
W: gnustep-base0-dbg: non-dev-pkg-with-shlib-symlink
usr/lib/GNUstep/System/Libraries/ix86/linux-gnu/gnu-gnu-gnu-xgps/libgnustep-base_d.so.0.9.1
usr/lib/GNUstep/System/L
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 11:34:09PM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
> > That would be a reason *not* to put it in policy, at least until we
> > consider the reasons for such a refusal. Policy is supposed to
> > encode the things we do agree on.
>
> That's not true, and it never was. Policy chan
On Sat, Mar 03, 2001 at 12:38:33PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Wichert wrote:
> > > I highly object to complicant the interface to debian/rules.
> > Anthony wrote:
> > > But, uh, isn't that what you're doing?
> > No, because allowing non-makefile rules files wouldn't require any changes
> > to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 01.03.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>"Alex" == Alexander Hvostov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Alex> It can be done the easy way, or the hard way. What you described is
> the Alex> hard way. Why can't it be done the easy way?
>
> If people r
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Josip Rodin) wrote on 01.03.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> These two things aren't demanded by Policy AFAICT, it just so happens that
> they're possible to be done. Had we used perl or shell as rules file
> previously, there would be similar things that would be made nonstandard
On Sat, Mar 03, 2001 at 02:48:00PM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> > These two things aren't demanded by Policy AFAICT, it just so happens that
> > they're possible to be done. Had we used perl or shell as rules file
> > previously, there would be similar things that would be made nonstandard by
> >
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Josip Rodin) wrote on 28.02.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I would like to propose that the debian/rules file is allowed to be
> non-makefile. Any kind of a program that can do the required stuff can be a
> debian/rules file. We shouldn't prohibit it when someone e.g. writes a sh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Santiago Vila) wrote on 28.02.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
>
> > > I would like to propose that the debian/rules file is allowed to be
> > > non-makefile. Any kind of a program that can do the required stuff can
> > > be a debian/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wichert Akkerman) wrote on 01.03.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'll make this a proposal then:
>
> Section 5.2 of policy currently dictates that debian/rules has to be
> a makefile. While this is good practice, the only thing that is essential
> is that it is an executable
Thus spoke Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 2001-03-03 14:33:00:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Josip Rodin) wrote on 28.02.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I would like to propose that the debian/rules file is allowed to be
> > non-makefile. Any kind of a program that can do the required stuff can be
On Sat, Mar 03, 2001 at 04:14:45PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> It would make the Policy consistent. Currently, it allows maintainer scripts
> to be anything you would like. The only thing that is required is that they
> must be proper executables. They can even be binaries. Then why does the
> Pol
Hi,
>>"Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Wichert> But Manoj said he would remove the non-policy bits from it, and this
Wichert> would clearly fall in that category imho.
I disagree.
Wichert> I'll make this a proposal then:
Wichert> As such I propose that t
>>"Oliver" == Oliver Elphick writes:
Oliver> I think that all documentation must reflect the Debian
Oliver> locations of configuration and other files, and that manpages
Oliver> and the like should be altered as necessary to achieve this.
Oliver> Comments?
Indeed, incorrect document
On Sat, Mar 03, 2001 at 04:14:45PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> It would make the Policy consistent. Currently, it allows maintainer scripts
> to be anything you would like. The only thing that is required is that they
> must be proper executables. They can even be binaries. Then why does the
> Pol
14 matches
Mail list logo
