* Steve Langasek [090823 21:51]:
> Oh; so "every second release" -> "one release, 7 years ago, in which there
> was a bug".
Thanks that you point out my mistake in so nice terms. I'm pleading
guilty of the high crime of doing an estimation and erring by 100%
(25% of all releases with sparc64 libc
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.3.0
Hi Policy hackers.
I feel there is a problem with §4.14 ("Source package handling:
debian/README.source") that is a little harmful at present.
Basically, I feel that assuming that all packages that use a patch system
require a README.source is damaging the
Chris Lamb wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.8.3.0
>
> Hi Policy hackers.
>
> I feel there is a problem with §4.14 ("Source package handling:
> debian/README.source") that is a little harmful at present.
>
> Basically, I feel that assuming that all packages that use a patch system
> r
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort (24/08/2009):
> > Basically, I feel that assuming that all packages that use a patch
> > system require a README.source is damaging the concept of
> > README.source - as the archive grows more boilerplate descriptions
> > on how to invoke quilt et al, I fear maintainers will
Chris Lamb writes:
> If the motivation behind README.source is to highlight non-trivial
> packaging, then many packages can be presented that are trivial dispite
> using a patch system. My own conclusion is that the adoption of dpatch
> or quilt is so common that the skills for it may be assumed.
On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 15:46 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Chris Lamb writes:
>
> > If the motivation behind README.source is to highlight non-trivial
> > packaging, then many packages can be presented that are trivial dispite
> > using a patch system. My own conclusion is that the adoption of dpat
Hi,
Chris Lamb wrote:
> Basically, I feel that assuming that all packages that use a patch system
> require a README.source is damaging the concept of README.source
Seconded.
On Monday 24 August 2009 17:46:25 Russ Allbery wrote:
[...]
>
> I'm increasingly inclined to agree with this, but I'd lik
Raphael Geissert writes:
> Some exceptions are indeed required, but like Andrew already said it
> should be done with care. Some wording more generic than just "standard
> quilt and dpatch using lists of patches". I think everyone is used to
> dpatch and quilt with lists of patches in debian/patc
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I'm increasingly inclined to agree with this, but I'd like to specifically
> spell out what the exceptions are. I think the important exception would
> be that packages that use quilt or dpatch in the default mode, applying
> all patches in debian/patches
9 matches
Mail list logo
