Hi,
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
It would be nice to have support for a Description field in the source
stanza of debian/control.
My rationale for that is manyfold:
0) (Starting intuition) most source package have a description per se,
intuitively, that is the same
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.15.5.6
Severity: wishlist
I've been converting my packages to 3.0 (quilt) format. Firstly, let me
say that I'm very impressed; this is the first thing along the lines of
a patch system that I've actually liked, and given that I've been one of
the major
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 11:05:14AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
0) (Starting intuition) most source package have a description per se,
intuitively, that is the same description you'd find on the upstream
homepage that made you download a specific software. Sure different
binary
On 02/03/10 11:05, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
What is the stance of dpkg-dev maintainers on this?
I think it's ok. But some more feedback would be welcome, CCing -devel for
this.
The substvars approach sounds good to me. I think I'd use it quite a
Le mardi 02 mars 2010 à 11:05 +0100, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
If I do something like that it's rather with substvars. You could use
${source:Description:body} and ${source:Description:title} in the binary
package description to refer to the the corresponding parts of the source
description.
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 01:03:57PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
The substvars approach sounds good to me. I think I'd use it quite a lot,
specially in libraries.
That, however, does not solve the problem of how to access a source
package description from infrastructure tools such as
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 01:03:57PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
The substvars approach sounds good to me. I think I'd use it quite a lot,
specially in libraries.
That, however, does not solve the problem of how to access a source
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.15.5.6
Severity: wishlist
I still have the odd package where I need to make some files executable
after unpacking (or after patching). It would be nice if there were a
way to declare this in the 3.0 format, along the lines of
debian/source/include-binaries.
Thanks,
Hi,
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010, Colin Watson wrote:
I still have the odd package where I need to make some files executable
after unpacking (or after patching). It would be nice if there were a
way to declare this in the 3.0 format, along the lines of
debian/source/include-binaries.
Files coming
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 04:00:01PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010, Colin Watson wrote:
I still have the odd package where I need to make some files executable
after unpacking (or after patching). It would be nice if there were a
way to declare this in the 3.0 format,
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes:
If I do something like that it's rather with substvars. You could use
${source:Description:body} and ${source:Description:title} in the binary
package description to refer to the the corresponding parts of the
source description.
That sounds like a
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes:
If I do something like that it's rather with substvars. You could use
${source:Description:body} and ${source:Description:title} in the
binary package description to refer to the the corresponding parts of
the source description.
Sounds great, with
Quoting Raphael Hertzog (hert...@debian.org):
and it might meant again supplementary changes in the infrastructutre if
people want to see those descriptions translated (but I'm not convinced
we need translations on Sources, users of those are mostly developers
contrary to Packages).
Those
Quoting Ben Finney (ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au):
Sounds great, with the minor caveat that I'd rather not have the vars
using different terms from what is already used to describe those
fields. Instead, (bikeshed mode activate) I'd prefer
‘${source:Description:synopsis}’ and
14 matches
Mail list logo
