On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 08:04:44PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:02:55 +0200, Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
dpkg has added new fields in the .dsc and .changes file.
They both can now contains two new fields: Checksums-Sha1
Checksums-Sha256
They
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
No, thanks. Let's please not allow programs to say I'll ignore your
system-wide setting because I use some other system-wide setting
instead. There should be only one default browser on a system.
I agree to that. And I think this is a reason why
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
Various other software, like debsign and dak, had to be changed. The
policy is not just about what the general package maintainer should
know, it's also how our tools should interact.
If you don't think the format of the .dsc and .changes should be
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:14:18 -0700, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Policy is the only formal documentation we have right now of the
control fields in a Debian package, so I think there's at least a
prima facie argument for adding a specification for any new fields to
Policy, at least
Russ Allbery wrote:
Gürkan Sengün [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Since the Artistic, BSD, GPL, and LGPL licenses are included in
/usr/share/common-licenses, would it be possible to get the SIL OFL
included as well?
It's in many respects better to include the license directly in
debian/copyright,
Gürkan Sengün [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery wrote:
Gürkan Sengün [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Since the Artistic, BSD, GPL, and LGPL licenses are included in
/usr/share/common-licenses, would it be possible to get the SIL OFL
included as well?
It's in many respects better to include
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:14:18 -0700, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Policy is the only formal documentation we have right now of the
control fields in a Debian package, so I think there's at least a prima
facie argument for adding a
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also we must consider if that's something better standardized at the
freedesktop level. Consider for example that we might want to mandate
the usage of xdg-open to call a browser, that matches existing pratice
and xdg-open could be modified so that it
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
# Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.25
reopen 478295
Bug#478295: Sha1 and sha256 in .changes and .dsc file
Bug reopened, originator not changed.
End of message, stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
Here is a proposed patch that also clarifies the comparison of version
numbers a bit. Seconds?
Seconded. Looks fine.
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
signature.asc
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ p
+ filedebian/README.source/file may also include any other
+ information that would be helpful to someone modifying the
+ source package. Even if the package doesn't fit the above
+ description, maintainers are encouraged
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I suggest to end this paragraph with
+ system (for example, a package that builds the same source
+ multiple times to generate different binary packages, or a
+ package which had to change the upstream tarball due to
+ technical
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:39:40 -0700, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:14:18 -0700, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Policy is the only formal documentation we have right now of the
control fields in a Debian package,
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:39:21 -0700, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Joey had reported at the time that most programs in Debian had moved
to using sensible-browser or honoring BROWSER, but that was some time
ago and the archive has moved on since then. I'm not sure (outside of
the
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:49:47 -0700, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Raphael Geissert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
With Adam agreeing to make this private conversation public, please
read below and comment. If necessary I don't mind a report to be
filled against the package.
Please open
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:03:35 -0700, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If that sounds good, I'll merge from master into all the pending bug
branches
I did this anyway, since there seems to be no downside. I also
deleted the stray bug branch for the
Hi,
The following patch, from branch bug458910-rra, looks good to
me.
manoj
Document that an empty Debian revision is equivalent to a Debian
revision of 0 and clarify the way version numbers are compared. Thanks
to Raphael Hertzog for information about what dpkg does.
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:39:21 -0700, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Joey had reported at the time that most programs in Debian had moved to
using sensible-browser or honoring BROWSER, but that was some time ago
and the archive has moved on
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would not have minded trying to fix 179 packages to use signal
names rather than numbers; but if Autoconf and Libtool use numbers,
then the problem grows larger.
Mind you, XSI extensions allow the use of numbers instead of
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The following patch, from branch bug458910-rra, looks good to
me.
That's two seconds, so I should merge it. Is there some way that I can
include the Acked-by information in a merge when I do the merge? Hm,
actually, I'm guessing probably
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:39:40 -0700, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
That's actually on my to-do list. I think that belongs in Policy as
well (particularly the non-Browser headers, which are used for
interoperability within the project -- see
21 matches
Mail list logo
