On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 09:18:20AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 05:05:08PM -0700, Daniel Schepler wrote:
> > Is this an inconsistency with the above quote from section 7.6, which
> > uses the word "may"?
>
> Yes.
Ah, you see my point now :)
Marcin
--
Marcin Owsiany <[EM
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 05:05:08PM -0700, Daniel Schepler wrote:
> Is this an inconsistency with the above quote from section 7.6, which
> uses the word "may"?
Yes.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths
Marcin Owsiany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 06:00:07AM -0500, BugScan reporter wrote:
> >
> > Package: cvs (debian/main)
> > Maintainer: Eric Gillespie, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 95263 missing build dependency
>
> The policy says:
>
> A source package may dec
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rahul Jain) writes:
> maybe there should be meta-packages for packages that have embedded version
> numbers like that.
In the general case, yes. In this case, there is no need for one, since the
package in question is build-essential, and so need not be listed in a build
depen
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 01:30:44AM -0600, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> I'd be tempted to agree with you, except...
>
> I've spent quite a bit of time recently dealing with packages that include an
> explicit build dependency on "libstdc++2.10-dev". This is not necessary since
> it is a dependency for an
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Bdale Garbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It isn't *quite* that simple. Explicit build dependencies should only be
> > for packages that are neither essential nor build-essential.
>
> But it's entirely harmless to mention them; this is an
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 11:29:20PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Bdale Garbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It isn't *quite* that simple. Explicit build dependencies should only be
> > for packages that are neither essential nor build-essential.
>
> But it's entirely harmless to ment
Bdale Garbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It isn't *quite* that simple. Explicit build dependencies should only be
> for packages that are neither essential nor build-essential.
But it's entirely harmless to mention them; this is an area where it's
better to err on the side of liberality than
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bas Zoetekouw) writes:
> If a package requires any binary package in order to be build from
> source, it must declare a dependency on that package.
It isn't *quite* that simple. Explicit build dependencies should only be
for packages that are neither essential nor build-
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 05:31:02PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > This is not correct. All packages have to follow current policy: if they
> > miss out on most issues, that's a bug, if they miss some other issues,
> > that's an RC bug. It doesn't matter wha
Hi Marcus!
You wrote:
> > > > A source package may declare a dependency or a conflict
> > > > on a binary package.
> Some packages don't build depend on any beside the build essentials. You
> certainly need to make provision for them, so a simple s/may/must/ won't
> work.
Then what
On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
> This is not correct. All packages have to follow current policy: if they
> miss out on most issues, that's a bug, if they miss some other issues,
> that's an RC bug. It doesn't matter what Standards-Version they claim.
Maybe dinstall should include a st
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 06:13:37AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 06:00:07AM -0500, BugScan reporter wrote:
> > > Package: cvs (debian/main)
> > > Maintainer: Eric Gillespie, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > 95263 missing build depe
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 03:25:54PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> >
> > I still don't understand why the policy (version 3.5.3.0)
> > doesn't simply say "must" rather then "may".
> >
>
> Debian is a community which exists for the mutual benefit of its members.
>
> Members playing games lik
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 12:11:41AM +0200, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 06:13:37AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> > > The policy says:
> > >
> > > A source package may declare a dependency or a conflict
>
>
> I still don't understand why the policy (version 3.5.3.0)
> doesn't simply say "must" rather then "may".
>
Debian is a community which exists for the mutual benefit of its members.
Members playing games like 'policy does not say I *HAVE* to do it' do not make
Debian a better place.
let's a
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 06:13:37AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> > The policy says:
> >
> > A source package may declare a dependency or a conflict
^^^
> > on a binary package.
[...]
> Some 3.x policy version added bui
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 06:00:07AM -0500, BugScan reporter wrote:
> >
> > Package: cvs (debian/main)
> > Maintainer: Eric Gillespie, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 95263 missing build dependency
>
> The policy says:
>
> A source package may declar
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 06:00:07AM -0500, BugScan reporter wrote:
>
> Package: cvs (debian/main)
> Maintainer: Eric Gillespie, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 95263 missing build dependency
The policy says:
A source package may declare a dependency or a conflict
on a binary package.
Th
19 matches
Mail list logo
