On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 01:31:26AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 08:40:13AM -0600, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > I'd like to rewrite policy soonish.
>
> Into what, exactly?
>
> Last time this came up we had a nice flamewar about it, but didn&#x
t; games, libs, languages, whatever -- and it could easily refer you to
> the DSD for the details if necessary; while the DSD has to be fairly
> conservative (you shouldn't include new features, like say ~ in versions
> or DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS until everyone supports them -- dp
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 02:13:36AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 07:29:57AM -0600, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > To split the (often borderline) cases of specs versus guidelines seems
> > to me to be somewhat misguided.
>
> Well, that's nice, but if ou
) and include them in both places. In this way,
they will be both in the specs document (useful for specs!) and the
guidelines (useful for package developers) and always be in sync - yeah!
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian
On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 12:08:03AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 07:33:44AM -0600, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 02:13:36AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > __Debian Standards Document__
> > > dpkg:
> > >* v
former
> "build" rule (which would not be as accurate), or we could have some
> "build-all" target on which both "build" and "build-indep" (which
> would complicate stuff, maybe with no good reason)
>
>
>
> Do you think this is solid eno
me cases be worth adding, though, if upstream
makefiles add -O2 automatically.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
website: http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jdg/
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see: http://people.debian.org/~jdg/
Visit http://www.thehungersite.com/ to help feed the hungry
can I do it without wasting autobuilder's CPU time?
See Ian Jackson's comments: this is, apparently, a spurious argument.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
webs
t have been accepted.
Yeah, go Manoj!!
Thanks,
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
website: http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jdg/
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see: http
ves the same exit codes as make does. This will be the case if
debian/rules is a makefile, but if not
[ducks and runs for cover!]
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
,
whereas build* doesn't require root privileges. So the aim is to
build without fakeroot and then call the binary* targets under
fakeroot.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of Londo
/usr/share/doc/bash/README.Debian.gz
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
website: http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jdg/
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see: http://people.debian.
d from the maintainer scripts.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
website: http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jdg/
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see: http://people.debian.org/~jdg/
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 08:15:58AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-09-20 at 05:28, Julian Gilbey wrote:
>
> >
> > Technical problems here. Among other things, you'd have symlinks
> > /bin/sh -> /etc/alternatives/sh -> /bin/
> > What happe
Did anything ever come of this?
On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 10:23:01AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> Okay, I guess it's time things got straightened out with regards to
> scalable fonts in Debian.
>
> As you are all probably aware, there is no current Debian Policy governing
> fonts
600?
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, website: http://www.polya.uklinux.net/
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see: http://people.debian.org/~jdg/
Visit http://www.thehungersite.com/ to help feed the hungry
variable ESR proposed at
> http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/BROWSER/. Mostly because I never want to
> configure again in a program what web browser to use.
Yes, yes, yes!!!
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gil
#x27;t see anywhere in policy which requires this.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, website: http://www.polya.uklinux.net/
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see: http://people.debian.org/~jdg/
Visit http://www.th
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 11:09:33PM +1100, Brendan O'Dea wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 09:46:01AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> >On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 06:35:52PM +1100, Brendan O'Dea wrote:
> >> Personally I prefer to rename the upstream tarball to .orig.tar.gz
tors will need to extract such information in an
automatic manner.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, website: http://www.polya.uklinux.net/
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see: http://people.debian.org/~jdg/
Visit http://www.thehungersite.com/ to help feed the hungry
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 12:34:17AM +0100, Denis Barbier wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 11:28:46PM +0000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> [...]
> > I doubt that translators will need to extract such information in an
> > automatic manner.
>
> If these informations we
?
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, website: http://www.polya.uklinux.net/
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see: http://people.debian.org/~jdg/
Visit http://www.thehungersite.com/ to help feed the hungry
Maybe ask on the FHS list for comments, too?
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, website: http://www.polya.uklinux.net/
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see: http://people.debian.org/~jdg/
Visit http://www.thehungersite.com/ to help feed the hungry
ld target if that doesn't exist. At that point, the distinction
will make sense; the way the Build-Depends{,-Indep} fields were
originally designed or implemented was fundamentally broken, in that
the -Indep fields were useless.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
?&pkg=freesci&ver=0.3.4a-2&arch=alpha&stamp=1043707174&file=log&as=raw
> for an example of this.
Correct.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, website: http://www.polya.uklinux.net/
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see: http://people.debian.org/~jdg/
Visit http://www.thehungersite.com/ to help feed the hungry
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 02:46:27PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> What is the opinion of this group?
>
> Anand
As Joey pointed out, but with one addition:
Source: debian-policy
Section: doc
Priority: optional
Maintainer: Debian Policy List
Uploaders: Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTE
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 06:55:37PM +, James Troup wrote:
> Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > In that case, the buildds are broken: they don't install
> > > Build-Depends-Indep, even though they do invoke the clean and build
> >
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 12:23:50AM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Julian Gilbey wrote:
>
> > So given how few packages we are talking about, would it be worth the
> > buildds using all packages specified in both Build-Depends and
> > Build-Depends-Ind
ing to consider
changing to support the originally-intended setup, there is no point
maintaining this distinction in policy. Of course, there is no
problem with individual packages doing this; it causes no harm.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
27; modem would appreciate if someone else did that for
> me. :)
>
> Manoj has told me he won't be available in the near future. Julian? Branden?
Next week. Please email me to remind me then!
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"+", "-", or
> ".", nor I have seen any package name with repeated ".". I guess common
> sense rules.
Policy 2.3.1: must begin with an alphanumeric.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, website: http://www.polya.uklinux.net/
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see: http://people.debian.org/~jdg/
Visit http://www.thehungersite.com/ to help feed the hungry
On Sun, Apr 06, 2003 at 09:40:59PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> 6 weeks ago, Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > As things stand with the buildds, the -Indep fields are almost
> > useless, and it may actually be worth dumping the -Indep field
> >
per as a dependency in the clean target.)
So what should this policy be? I understand the desire not to require
Build-Depends-Indep to clean, but this isn't quite the way to do it
properly.
Any ideas?
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, website: http://www.polya.uklinux.net/
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see: http://people.debian.org/~jdg/
Visit http://www.thehungersite.com/ to help feed the hungry
h and build-indep targets).
As has been explained, the problem is somewhat academic, though.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, website: http://www.polya.uklinux.net/
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see: http:/
rst version in which this
statoverride was introduced.
In this way, if the sysadmin later touches the statoverride, their
changes will remain (for good or bad).
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, website: http://www.
licy (?9.3.2).
I thought that the LSB only applies to LSB packages and Debian Policy
applies to Debian packages. In this case, we have this "graceful
exit" clause so that when a package is removed but not purged, the
script exits silently. I don't know whether LSB packages have su
it makes a lot of logistical sense.)
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, website: http://www.polya.uklinux.net/
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see: http://people.debian.org/~jdg/
Visit http://www.thehungersite.com/ to help feed the hungry
y can define higher version.
>
> dpkg-buildpackage just need to read this file before deciding
> whether it can call debian/rules build-arch.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, website: http://www.polya.uklinu
nal required targets: ...
etc.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, website: http://www.polya.uklinux.net/
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see: http://people.debian.org/~jdg/
Visit http://www.thehungersite.com/ to help feed the hungry
be ...
if rules.version=1, then dpkg-buildpackage will be allowed to do ...
etc.
But of course, this has to be done with the consent and coorperation
of the dpkg maintainers.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, websi
ould you provide references in the form of
http://lists.debian.org/... so that we can track these down?
Thanks,
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, website: http://www.polya.uklinux.net/
Debian GNU/Linux Developer,
an/control,
and would not be needed until after the build-dependencies are
checked, there should be no problem.
And then again, we can always use debian/interfaces or
debian/rules.targets or something similar instead
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 08:46:57PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > The section in the policy should say
> > Packages other than base-passwd must not modify /etc/passwd,
> > /etc/shadow, /etc/group or /etc/gshadow directly from their maintainer
> > scripts.
>
> I'd suggest:
>
> Maintainer scripts for
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 01:01:22AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Nov 2005, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > I was surprised to discover that the standard rules for Debian
> > revision numbers
> > (maintainer revisions contain no dots;
> > source NMUs contain one dots;
> > bina
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 04:19:25PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Adam Heath wrote:
> > On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, Bluefuture wrote:
> > > 3. submit with a wishlist (tag patch) bug to BTS.
> >
> > These things shouldn't be filed as bugs, when there are so many. Make a
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 12:03:01AM +0200, Miguel Gea Milvaques wrote:
> > Also, as this is a draft, the useage of "/usr/share/PACKAGE/www" may
> > change. IMO, it's probably not going to, but it may be worth keeping
> > (main) policy as is until we are in a position to release 1.0 of the
> > WebAp
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 05:55:56AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > Note: /usr/share/PACKAGE/www, not /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/www.
> > Removing /usr/share/doc should not impact this web suggestion.
>
> And what happens if my WebApp package is named "doc"? Or "applnk"? Or
> "keymaps" or "locale" or
601 - 647 of 647 matches
Mail list logo
