On Mon, 25 May 2009, Serafeim Zanikolas wrote:
> On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 06:10:03PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I guess I'm not understanding why you don't just make bogofilter depend
> > on bogofilter-common as well. What's the drawback?
>
> None really, but it would seem as if we're making
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 18:50:42 -0400, Andres Mejia wrote:
> @@ -2723,7 +2725,8 @@ Package: libc6
> In the main debian/control file in the source
> package, or in the source package control file
> .dsc, one may specify a list of architectures
> - separated by
On Wednesday 27 May 2009 06:51:58 Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 18:50:42 -0400, Andres Mejia wrote:
> > @@ -2723,7 +2725,8 @@ Package: libc6
> > In the main debian/control file in the source
> > package, or in the source package control file
> > .dsc, one m
On Wednesday 27 May 2009 00:04:19 Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jonathan Yu writes:
> > This is probably a stupid question, but...
> >
> > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> Currently, Policy's description of Architecture includes the statement:
> >>
> >>In the main debian/con
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 07:30:57 -0400, Andres Mejia wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 May 2009 06:51:58 Julien Cristau wrote:
> > This makes it sound like you can't mix architecture names and
> > architecture wildcards. Is that on purpose?
>
> Current policy has this wording and I didn't want to change
Andres Mejia writes:
> Perhaps inclusive 'or' is meant here. That's the impression I get from
> reading this.
> Perhaps a footnote saying "Here 'or' is meant inclusively" should be
> added.
Well, but that doesn't answer the more fundamental question. What does
an Architecture field like:
On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 11:19 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Well, but that doesn't answer the more fundamental question. What does
> an Architecture field like:
>
> i386 amd64 all
>
> in a *.dsc file mean? Currently, Policy is silent here.
That the binary packages referenced by the .dsc file
On Wednesday 27 May 2009 07:49:09 Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 07:30:57 -0400, Andres Mejia wrote:
> > On Wednesday 27 May 2009 06:51:58 Julien Cristau wrote:
> > > This makes it sound like you can't mix architecture names and
> > > architecture wildcards. Is that on purpose?
>
On Wednesday 27 May 2009 14:19:02 Russ Allbery wrote:
> Andres Mejia writes:
> > Perhaps inclusive 'or' is meant here. That's the impression I get from
> > reading this.
> >
> > Perhaps a footnote saying "Here 'or' is meant inclusively" should be
> > added.
>
> Well, but that doesn't answer the mo
On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 14:33 -0400, Andres Mejia wrote:
> > >
> > > Current policy has this wording and I didn't want to change that, so
> > > yes, it's on purpose.
> >
> > Not quite. Current policy says "arch list or 'any' or 'all'" and that's
> > fine (at least for debian/control), because it wou
On Wednesday 27 May 2009 17:22:19 Andrew McMillan wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 14:33 -0400, Andres Mejia wrote:
> > > > Current policy has this wording and I didn't want to change that, so
> > > > yes, it's on purpose.
> > >
> > > Not quite. Current policy says "arch list or 'any' or 'all'" and
On Wed, 27 May 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Andres Mejia writes:
>
> > Perhaps inclusive 'or' is meant here. That's the impression I get from
> > reading this.
>
> > Perhaps a footnote saying "Here 'or' is meant inclusively" should be
> > added.
>
> Well, but that doesn't answer the more fundame
12 matches
Mail list logo
