Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
Russ Allbery wrote:
I'm therefore including here the complete SGML source of that section
not in diff format, followed by the diff of everything *outside* of
that section. I think this will be easier to review.
Thanks! I would have preferred a
Russ Allbery wrote:
Okay, once more for the win.
Hoorah! :) I don't see any problems in the normative content, so I'd
second this if I could. Cosmetic nits (patch below):
[...]
+++ b/policy.sgml
[...]
@@ -5633,17 +5634,29 @@ Built-Using: grub2 (= 1.99-9), loadlin (= 1.6e-1)
[...]
p
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
Hoorah! :) I don't see any problems in the normative content, so I'd
second this if I could. Cosmetic nits (patch below):
Thanks, applied.
+ In our example, if the last change to the ttzlib1g/tt
+ package that could change
Russ Allbery wrote:
Let's go with 1:1.2.3.3.dfsg in the example to show the common case
instead of the unusual case. I've applied this:
Thanks. Looks good.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
Jonathan Nieder wrote:
I'll reply with an interdiff relative to the last version of the
patch.
Here it is.
Subject: Clarifications to symbols and shlibs policy
subject/verb agreement: s/provide/provides/
Packages with libraries or binaries linking to a shared library must
use symbols or
Julien Cristau wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 17:26:04 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
What about libraries like glib (assuming one only uses old symbols)
that are never supposed to change soname?
What about them?
I wanted to make sure that forbidding hard-coded dependencies on them
is
Russ Allbery wrote:
I'm therefore including here the complete
SGML source of that section not in diff format, followed by the diff of
everything *outside* of that section. I think this will be easier to
review.
Thanks! I would have preferred a diff since it
7 matches
Mail list logo
