manumitted kin
fatigue resorcinol
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Hi again,
Let me first clear up a confusion:
I agree that putting a library in a sub-directory does not disambiguate
ld.so searches. If libFoo.so.1 exists in both /usr/lib/bar
and /usr/lib/baz and both these directories are in the ld.so search path
(one way or another), then there is an ambig
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 02:41:09PM +0200, Christian Holm Christensen wrote:
> Yes and no. If bar and baz had put libfoo.so.1 in /usr/lib/bar
> and /usr/lib/baz respectively, one could at least install both packages
> at the same time without any conflict. If a user needed to use baz's
> libfoo.so
above pyrolysis
s somers wherefore
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Hi!
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 09:55:45 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jonathan Yu writes:
> > I ask because the terminology sounds ambiguous -- the OS part is
> > "sometimes" elided, as when the OS is Linux. But that doesn't
> > necessarily mean that a missing OS part means the OS is assumed to be
> >
Hi!
On Sat, 2009-06-20 at 16:29:48 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jun 2009, Raphaël Hertzog wrote:
> > --- a/policy.sgml
> > +++ b/policy.sgml
> > @@ -3276,7 +3276,9 @@ Package: libc6
> > commas
> > A space after each comma is conventional.
> > . C
Hi!
On Tue, 2009-05-26 at 18:50:42 -0400, Andres Mejia wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.8.1.0
> Severity: wishlist
> Tags: patch
> Support for architecture wildcards has been added to dpkg-1.13.13, yet there's
> no clear policy as to how architecture wildcards should be used for other
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 07:28:31PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
>
> I've always thought that eliding linux in the architecture was pretty
> confusing for people, which tend to consider it any- instead of
> linux-. And I added the alias with the intent to be able to
> possibly fix that in the future
zion
prolong
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Roger Leigh writes:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 07:28:31PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
>> I've always thought that eliding linux in the architecture was pretty
>> confusing for people, which tend to consider it any- instead of
>> linux-. And I added the alias with the intent to be able to
>> possib
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.7.2.2
Severity: minor
debian-policy appears to define Installed-Size's units as thousands of bytes:
> 5.6.20 Installed-Size
> This field appears in the control files of binary packages, and in the
> Packages files. It gives the total amount of disk space require
Martin Dorey writes:
> debian-policy appears to define Installed-Size's units as thousands of
> bytes:
>
>> 5.6.20 Installed-Size
>> This field appears in the control files of binary packages, and in
>> the Packages files. It gives the total amount of disk space required
>> to install the named p
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org).
> package debian-policy
Ignoring bugs not assigned to: debian-policy
> usertags 534408 informative
Bug#534408: debian-policy: Installe
Russ Allbery writes:
> Agreed. At the time Policy was originally written, kilobyte nearly
> universally meant kibibyte in the industry. I'll change this to:
>
> The disk space is given as the integer value of the installed size
> in bytes divided by 1024 and rounded (in other words, the
Hi:
I'm curious if I missed something in the policy manual that mentioned
paragraphs which are unknown. I find no mention of the Vcs-* fields
but I don't know if they're supposed to just be copied as-is. I've
seen the stuff on X-Comments and all the rules for X[BS]*- stuff, but
not the Vcs- stuff
Ben Finney writes:
> If you're going that far, please perform one of the following:
>
> s/rounded/fractions rounded up/
> s/rounded/fractions rounded down/
> s/rounded/fractions rounded to the nearest whole number/
>
> to disambiguate the calculation.
Does du guarantee to do one of t
Jonathan Yu writes:
> I'm curious if I missed something in the policy manual that mentioned
> paragraphs which are unknown. I find no mention of the Vcs-* fields
> but I don't know if they're supposed to just be copied as-is. I've
> seen the stuff on X-Comments and all the rules for X[BS]*- stuff
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:02 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jonathan Yu writes:
>
>> I'm curious if I missed something in the policy manual that mentioned
>> paragraphs which are unknown. I find no mention of the Vcs-* fields
>> but I don't know if they're supposed to just be copied as-is. I've
>> see
Russ Allbery writes:
> Ben Finney writes:
>
>> If you're going that far, please perform one of the following:
>>
>> s/rounded/fractions rounded up/
>> s/rounded/fractions rounded down/
>> s/rounded/fractions rounded to the nearest whole number/
>>
>> to disambiguate the calculation.
Ben Pfaff writes:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>> Ben Finney writes:
>>> If you're going that far, please perform one of the following:
>>>
>>> s/rounded/fractions rounded up/
>>> s/rounded/fractions rounded down/
>>> s/rounded/fractions rounded to the nearest whole number/
>>>
>>> to dis
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 00:17 -0400, Jonathan Yu wrote:
> >>
> >> Should this be something in the policy itself?
> >
> > I think so. But in general Policy doesn't document every possible
> > field, only the ones with Policy significance. dpkg from time to time
> > adds additional informational fiel
Jonathan Yu writes:
> For me it just seems odd to add fields to d/control that aren't in
> policy, though your explanation makes sense to me.
Debian policy is, ideally, descriptive instead of proscriptive. In other
words, it (ideally) changes only in response to acknowledged best
practices that
22 matches
Mail list logo
