On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 15:29:13 +0900
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote:
here is a new version trying to addres Simon's and Guillem's comments.
By the way, isn't Package-Type: udeb completely redundant with Section:
debian-installer ?
Different purposes.
udeb is a file format, allowed to
On Sat, 2013-01-12 at 09:07:19 +, Neil Williams wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 15:29:13 +0900
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote:
By the way, isn't Package-Type: udeb completely redundant with Section:
debian-installer ?
Different purposes.
Right. Where using Section in general
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
here is a new version trying to addres Simon's and Guillem's comments.
Seconded.
In response to the other follow-up, I don't think this is the right place
(or bug) to discuss udeb package behavior or what portions of Policy they
comply with.
--
Russ
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
Russ Allbery wrote:
In response to the other follow-up, I don't think this is the right
place (or bug) to discuss udeb package behavior or what portions of
Policy they comply with.
Surely it is relevant to people reading policy that it does not
Russ Allbery wrote:
In response to the other follow-up, I don't think this is the right place
(or bug) to discuss udeb package behavior or what portions of Policy they
comply with.
Surely it is relevant to people reading policy that it does not comply with
them all (or in other words that
On Sat, 2013-01-12 at 15:29:13 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
here is a new version trying to addres Simon's and Guillem's comments.
@@ -2671,6 +2671,7 @@ Package: libc6
itemqref id=f-DescriptionttDescription/tt/qref
(mandatory)/item
itemqref
Le Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 03:58:31AM +0100, Guillem Jover a écrit :
On Thu, 2013-01-10 at 07:32:54 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
p
Multiline field listing all the packages that can be built from
the source package, considering every architecture. The
On 11/01/13 12:05, Charles Plessy wrote:
+ separated by spaces. Other space-separated values may be added.
Who may add (define) them?
I assume the intention here is that (using RFC 2119 language for
clarity) readers of a .dsc MUST allow (and ignore) fifth and subsequent
On Fri, 2013-01-11 at 21:05:21 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 03:58:31AM +0100, Guillem Jover a écrit :
It will only list binary packages, not all the information for the
source package is currently available from other fields in the .dsc
file, but it could be exported
Hi all,
here is a new version trying to addres Simon's and Guillem's comments.
By the way, isn't Package-Type: udeb completely redundant with Section:
debian-installer ?
Have a nice week-end,
-- Charles
@@ -2671,6 +2671,7 @@ Package: libc6
itemqref
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
retitle 697433 New fields Package-List and Package-Type.
usertags 697433 normative discussion
thanks
Le Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 02:42:30PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt a écrit :
I don't think the description for the Package-List field should document
the valid
Hi!
On Thu, 2013-01-10 at 07:32:54 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 02:42:30PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt a écrit :
I don't think the description for the Package-List field should document
the valid package types. There's already a Package-Type field for that
(defaults to
On 01/06/2013 01:12 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
we are documenting in the Policy the Package-List field of the Debian source
control files.
Multiline field listing all the packages that can be built from
the source package. The first line of the field value is empty.
Each one of the
Le Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 09:12:11AM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
we are documenting in the Policy the Package-List field of the Debian source
control files.
Multiline field listing all the packages that can be built from
the source package. The first line of the field value is
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
After experimenting by uploading a package without the Package-List
field, I see that it is not mandatory. But the Policy also
distinguishes recommended from other fields (for which nothing is
mentioned). Given that it is there by default, I propose
Dear FTP team and everybody,
we are documenting in the Policy the Package-List field of the Debian source
control files.
Multiline field listing all the packages that can be built from
the source package. The first line of the field value is empty.
Each one of the next lines describe one
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org (06/01/2013):
I do not know if this field should be marked mandatory, recommended
or optional. Is this field strictly necessary for uploads ?
I'm not sure how we could be making this field mandatory all of a
sudden. (Think uploads to {o,s}-p-u, for a start.)
17 matches
Mail list logo
