On 2017-05-06 08:38, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> On 06/05/2017 02:20, Brian Inglis wrote:
>> On 2017-05-01 13:57, Achim Gratz wrote:
>>> Jon Turney writes:
What is your reason for changing the name?
>>> There shouldn't be two different naming conventions for the same
>>> purpose. So
>>>
On 06/05/2017 02:20, Brian Inglis wrote:
On 2017-05-01 13:57, Achim Gratz wrote:
Jon Turney writes:
What is your reason for changing the name?
There shouldn't be two different naming conventions for the same
purpose. So
package-version-release[-purpose].tar.xz
with purpose:=[source|debuginfo]
On 2017-05-01 13:57, Achim Gratz wrote:
> Jon Turney writes:
>> What is your reason for changing the name?
> There shouldn't be two different naming conventions for the same
> purpose. So
> package-version-release[-purpose].tar.xz
> with purpose:=[source|debuginfo] would be preferrable.
>> I was
Jon Turney writes:
> The assumption that the "package" part is unique for installable
> packages is rather deeply entrenched, and I don't actually see any
> benefit apart from the aesthetic in changing this now.
Well, it's not really the aesthetics: the debuginfo package is, like the
source
On 01/05/2017 20:57, Achim Gratz wrote:
Jon Turney writes:
What is your reason for changing the name?
There shouldn't be two different naming conventions for the same
purpose. So
package-version-release[-purpose].tar.xz
with purpose:=[source|debuginfo] would be preferrable.
If we were
On 03/05/2017 12:50, Ken Brown wrote:
On 5/1/2017 4:05 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
On 5/1/2017 3:57 PM, Achim Gratz wrote:
But the real problem is that besides our own stuff some upstream
sources
are archful.
Examples?
Last I looked, it was texlive.
This might go back to the time when biber was
On 5/1/2017 4:05 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
On 5/1/2017 3:57 PM, Achim Gratz wrote:
But the real problem is that besides our own stuff some upstream sources
are archful.
Examples?
Last I looked, it was texlive.
This might go back to the time when biber was distributed as a packed perl
archive
On 5/1/2017 3:57 PM, Achim Gratz wrote:
But the real problem is that besides our own stuff some upstream sources
are archful.
Examples?
Last I looked, it was texlive.
This might go back to the time when biber was distributed as a packed
perl archive on x86 but not x86_64. But it hasn't
Jon Turney writes:
> What is your reason for changing the name?
There shouldn't be two different naming conventions for the same
purpose. So
package-version-release[-purpose].tar.xz
with purpose:=[source|debuginfo] would be preferrable.
> I was wondering if we need to explicitly identify
On 27/04/2017 18:53, Achim Gratz wrote:
Jon Turney writes:
Picking up the discussion from [1], I've been looking a bit at
noarching the source packages.
So, the first problem is that we don't really have source packages.
I'll use this occasion to raise the topic of the debuginfo packages
Jon Turney writes:
> Picking up the discussion from [1], I've been looking a bit at
> noarching the source packages.
>
> So, the first problem is that we don't really have source packages.
I'll use this occasion to raise the topic of the debuginfo packages
again. I still think we should change
Picking up the discussion from [1], I've been looking a bit at noarching
the source packages.
So, the first problem is that we don't really have source packages.
Instead there is a special package (conventionally, the main one) which
has a source archive as well as a binary archive, and all
12 matches
Mail list logo
