On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 04:18:13PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote [edted]:
> I would suggest disallowing example entries altogether; let packages use the
> '##' syntax instead. Or is there some reason I'm missing why we would
> want to support so many different ways for packages to add lines to
> upd
Serafeim Zanikolas writes:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 04:18:13PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote [edted]:
>> I would suggest disallowing example entries altogether; let packages
>> use the '##' syntax instead. Or is there some reason I'm missing
>> why we would want to support so many different ways
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 01:43:47AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote [edited]:
> I would really rather we went with the proposal I put forward in this
> thread:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/03/msg00496.html
>
> in this message:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/03/msg00573.html
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> package debian-policy
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy'
Limit currently set to 'package':'debian-policy'
> user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (wa
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 08:02:33PM +0200, Serafeim Zanikolas wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 01:43:47AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote [edited]:
> > I would really rather we went with the proposal I put forward in this
> > thread:
> >
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/03/msg00496.html
> >
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.3.0
Severity: wishlist
User: debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Usertags: normative issue
Hi,
Currently, there is some ambiguity in the areas of version
numbering, debian_revision, native packages, and requirement for a
diff.gz/orig.tar.gz files in a s
I like this proposal, thanks for ignoring my request to not write about
alternatives ;)
I'll take some time to think about it and read up on triggers/etc. I might bug
you in private about this as I think we're getting off-topic here.
-S
--
debtags-organised WNPP bugs: http://members.hellug.gr/s
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Given these, I read this as letting the tools rely on
> the following invariants, even though these are not explicitly spelled
> out in so many words in policy:
>
> 1) If there is a - in the version number, then the package is
> non-n
On Tue, Aug 18 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Given these, I read this as letting the tools rely on
>> the following invariants, even though these are not explicitly spelled
>> out in so many words in policy:
>>
>> 1) If there is a - in th
On Tue, Aug 18 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Given these, I read this as letting the tools rely on
>> the following invariants, even though these are not explicitly spelled
>> out in so many words in policy:
>>
>> 1) If there is a - in th
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 10:16:47PM +0200, Serafeim Zanikolas wrote:
> I like this proposal, thanks for ignoring my request to not write about
> alternatives ;)
>
> I'll take some time to think about it and read up on triggers/etc. I might bug
> you in private about this as I think we're getting of
Roger Leigh writes:
> The initial work that needs doing is defining a suitable file format. A
> simple key=value or Key: Value scheme would probably be sufficient if
> there's only one service per file. Alternatively, the xinetd format is
> /currently/ the superset, but that's perhaps not flexi
12 matches
Mail list logo
