On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 09:59:00AM +, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Peter Pentchev:
> > [...]
> >
> > Well, here's what I'm about to do in the next upload of stunnel4:
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> For the record, I am adding support for the nodoc profile directly in
> debhelper (for dh_installdocs it is alread
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:52:40AM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > policy is there for reasons and in this case it's because most free software
> > demands that the copyright licence is shipped together with the binaries.
> In this case, sure, but I was already making the more-abstract point that
> fo
Hi Holger,
> policy is there for reasons and in this case it's because most free software
> demands that the copyright licence is shipped together with the binaries.
In this case, sure, but I was already making the more-abstract point that
folks probably shouldn't be uploading packages to "real"
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 03:55:13PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > the suggested work around for now is not policy compliant.
> Well spotted. Would that matter though? I mean, nobody should be uploading
> packages to Debian with nodoc anyway, surely?
policy is there for reasons and in this case it's
tags 865869 + pending
thanks
Hi Niels,
> For the record, I am adding support for the nodoc profile directly in
> debhelper
Yay! Adding "pending" tag to match.
For anyone following along:
https://anonscm.debian.org/git/debhelper/debhelper.git/commit/?id=b7da6ea323aae5bdd2a89c7ab4d3356ad938f6
Peter Pentchev:
> [...]
>
> Well, here's what I'm about to do in the next upload of stunnel4:
>
Hi,
For the record, I am adding support for the nodoc profile directly in
debhelper (for dh_installdocs it is already merged into master).
Accordingly, you should not need the following:
> ifneq (,$
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 07:32:00AM +, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Chris Lamb:
> > Hi,
> >
> >> the suggested work around for now is not policy compliant.
> >
> > Well spotted. Would that matter though? I mean, nobody should be uploading
> > packages to Debian with nodoc anyway, surely?
> >
> >
>
On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 21:54:03 +0100 Chris Lamb wrote:
> Chris Lamb wrote:
>
> > I think I meant DEB_BUILD_PROFILES, not DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS
>
> After a brief discussion on #debian-qa, the consensus is that — if it's
> the job of debhelper to do this in the first place — then it should check
> DEB_B
Chris Lamb:
> Hi,
>
>> the suggested work around for now is not policy compliant.
>
> Well spotted. Would that matter though? I mean, nobody should be uploading
> packages to Debian with nodoc anyway, surely?
>
>
> Regards,
>
I suspect it could matter.
It is my understanding that the nodoc p
Hi,
> the suggested work around for now is not policy compliant.
Well spotted. Would that matter though? I mean, nobody should be uploading
packages to Debian with nodoc anyway, surely?
Regards,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb, Debian Project Leader
`. `'` la...@debian.or
Chris Lamb wrote:
> I think I meant DEB_BUILD_PROFILES, not DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS
After a brief discussion on #debian-qa, the consensus is that — if it's
the job of debhelper to do this in the first place — then it should check
DEB_BUILD_PROFILES and not DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS.
Best wishes,
--
,
retitle 865869 debhelper: Don't run dh_installdocs if nodoc is specified in
DEB_BUILD_PROFILES
thanks
(Whoops, I think I meant DEB_BUILD_PROFILES, not DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS. But
perhaps this applies to both.)
Regards,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb, Debian Project Leader
`. `'`
12 matches
Mail list logo
