Package: dpkg-dev
Followup-For: Bug #689062
Hello.
I took the absence of answer to my messages here and the ITP as an
agreement that an external tool, if somewhat redundant, is preferable
to a change in the dpkg-gencontrol public interface, where any change
has wide repercussions.
So here is the
Hi everyone,
On Sunday 14 October 2012 20:06:19 Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-10-14 at 23:12:14 +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> > I'd like to propose the following solution:
> >
> > Let's introduce a new class of standard substitution variables, one
> > for every binary package, expanding to " (
Hi!
On Sun, 2012-10-14 at 23:12:14 +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Guillem Jover , 2012-09-28, 22:55:
> > I'm going to be closing this request if there's no additional
> > feedback proposing a workable and elegant solution to this.
>
> I'd like to propose the following solution:
>
> Let's introduce
* Guillem Jover , 2012-09-28, 22:55:
I'm going to be closing this request if there's no additional feedback
proposing a workable and elegant solution to this.
I'd like to propose the following solution:
Let's introduce a new class of standard substitution variables, one for
every binary packa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 29/09/12 16:36, Joey Hess wrote:
> Nicholas Bamber wrote:
>> Techincally the shell script fragments incorporated into Debian
>> maintance scripts by debhelper may fall into this category
>
> For code that is licensed like so?
>
> Redistribution
Nicholas Bamber wrote:
> Techincally the shell script
> fragments incorporated into Debian maintance scripts by debhelper may
> fall into this category
For code that is licensed like so?
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted under any cir
On 28/09/12 23:46, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 22:50:10 +0100, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
>> On 28/09/12 21:55, Guillem Jover wrote:
>>> As such, I'm going to be closing this request if there's no additional
>>> feedback proposing a workable and elegant solution to this.
>
>> Thanks f
On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 22:50:10 +0100, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
> On 28/09/12 21:55, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > As such, I'm going to be closing this request if there's no additional
> > feedback proposing a workable and elegant solution to this.
> Thanks for responing. I think I can come up with a pro
On 28/09/12 21:55, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Control: severity -1 wishlist
>
> Hi!
>
> On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 20:58:13 +0100, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
>> Package: dpkg-dev
>> Version: 1.16.8
>> Severity: normal
>>
>> Debian Policy version 3.9.4 adds support for the Built-Using field.
>> This field can
Control: severity -1 wishlist
Hi!
On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 20:58:13 +0100, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
> Package: dpkg-dev
> Version: 1.16.8
> Severity: normal
>
> Debian Policy version 3.9.4 adds support for the Built-Using field.
> This field can be different on each build run and so is analagous to
>
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.16.8
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
*** Please consider answering these questions, where appropriate ***
* What led up to the situation?
Debian Policy version 3.9.4 adds support for the Built-Using field. This field
can be
different on each build run and so is
11 matches
Mail list logo
