On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 00:58:12 -0200, MartÃn Ferrari wrote:
On Jan 2, 2008 12:28 AM, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a Policy proposal that's sat in the Policy bug queue with wording
and seconds for quite some time. I'd like to resurrect it and resolve it
one way or the other.
On Tue, Jan 01, 2008 at 09:08:30PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Here is a patch based heavily on Joey's original patch that describes
that. This patch (similar to Joey's) doesn't include the URL
canonicalization requirements of the secure BROWSER specification. They
don't seem obviously
regards
Nothing c'n B better than our pharmas!
http://dobongworld.com
From the Coast of Coromandel,
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
regards
Nothing c'n B better than our pharmas!
http://dobongworld.com
And a pound of Rice, and a Cranberry Tart,
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Packages which contain perl modules should provide virtual packages
that correspond to the primary module or modules in the package. The
naming convention is that for module 'Foo::Bar', the package should
provide 'libfoo-bar-perl'. This may be used as the package's name if
Hi Russ,
First, thanks for your great work on this bug.
On Tue, Jan 01, 2008 at 10:54:06PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
This is the last Policy bug I had tagged as wording. It started with a
proposal for a README.source file documenting how to do things with a
package that uses a non-trivial
Russ Allbery wrote:
This is a Policy proposal that's sat in the Policy bug queue with
wording and seconds for quite some time. I'd like to resurrect it and
resolve it one way or the other.
There's some room for clarification here.
I think it is apparent from comments given in 2001 the that
Please see this site in Subject
Hi,
wouldn't you have extroardinary member
http://www.slushfuns.com
Lyman
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello,
would you expect extroardinary cock
http://www.rapkocrats.com
Lacy
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
would you like larger slong
http://www.Reelhotsi.com
Esperanza
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
would you have big member
http://www.Foredroons.com
Willis
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jan 01, 2008 at 10:54:06PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Accordingly, I think moving forward with specifying a README.source
file that explains the above three or four points is something we can
reach consensus on. I'm not as sure about
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Russ,
First, thanks for your great work on this bug.
Thanks! It feels good to go back and resolve long-standing issues.
+ prngdpkg-buildpackage/prgn to produce a modified package
---^
Seems you've
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008, Julian Mehnle wrote:
I think that from the final sentence it can be inferred that it primarily
intends to mandate the _binary_ package name. So while we're discussing
the binary package naming, maybe we can decide whether the mandate should
be extended to the _source_
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 03:46:02PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008, Julian Mehnle wrote:
I think that from the final sentence it can be inferred that it primarily
intends to mandate the _binary_ package name. So while we're discussing
the binary package naming, maybe we
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008, Julian Mehnle wrote:
I think that from the final sentence it can be inferred that it
primarily intends to mandate the _binary_ package name. So while
we're discussing the binary package naming, maybe we can decide
whether the mandate should be
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 03:46:02PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
Unless there's a compelling reason to the contrary, a source
package should in general build at least one binary package of the
same name. This is definetly the case when the source
On Thu, 03 Jan 2008, Julian Mehnle wrote:
According to a simple survey of the packages in Lenny/amd64 (main,
contrib, non-free), 2365 of the 11757 source packages (20%!) have no
binary package of the same name. 814 of these (7% of all) have only
a single binary package. Wanna mass-file bugs?
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.7.3.0
Severity: wishlist
While analyzing http://bugs.debian.org/456318 I noticed that there's
nothing in Policy about when binaries are allowed to use rpath. The
question raised in that bug is whether games are allowed by FHS to
put their shared libraries in
20 matches
Mail list logo
