Charles Plessy writes ([DEP 8] About the Restrictions and Features field.):
reading DEP 8's appendix, I wonder about the necessity to keep separate
Restrictions and Features fields. For instance, the no-build-needed Feature
could also be a needs-build restriction. Perhaps the specification
* Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org, 2012-06-23, 12:33:
reading DEP 8's appendix, I wonder about the necessity to keep separate
Restrictions and Features fields. For instance, the no-build-needed
Feature could also be a needs-build restriction.
I noticed this only today:
| autopkgtest (2.0.0)
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 03:15:56PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
| autopkgtest (2.0.0) unstable; urgency=medium
|
| * Incompatible test declaration spec changes:
| - no-build-needed is now the default; build-needed is a Restriction
|that tests which need it have to declare.
Stefano Zacchiroli writes (Re: [DEP 8] About the Restrictions and Features
field.):
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 03:15:56PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
Apparently http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep8/ is not being kept
up-to-date. :|
Indeed, sorry about that. I tried to merge the changes ~30 mins ago
Ian Jackson writes (Re: [DEP 8] About the Restrictions and Features field.):
Stefano Zacchiroli writes (Re: [DEP 8] About the Restrictions and Features
field.):
Indeed, sorry about that. I tried to merge the changes ~30 mins ago, but
I first need to put my hands on the current Git HEAD
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 02:57:25PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
But I still think this would be a good idea:
Perhaps it would be better to have the wiki page point to a suitable
gitweb page ? This one perhaps:
Dear Ian, Iustin and Stefano,
reading DEP 8's appendix, I wonder about the necessity to keep separate
Restrictions and Features fields. For instance, the no-build-needed Feature
could also be a needs-build restriction. Perhaps the specification can
be simplified by dropping the Features field ?
7 matches
Mail list logo