Bug#691449: dpkg-buildflags should have an export mode for shell scripts

2012-10-28 Thread Jonathan Nieder
Guillem Jover wrote: Yeah, one of the things I checked was if an EXAMPLE section was present in the man page at all, or more detail about the quoting, given the confusion. So I think this really makes sense. But the QUOTING section seems a bit strange That's fair. I first tried putting this

Bug#681474: Dpkg::Vendor: should support /etc/os-release and /etc/os-release.d/*

2012-10-28 Thread Raphael Hertzog
Hi, On Sat, 27 Oct 2012, Guillem Jover wrote: Control: tag -1 wontfix *shrug* I filed it because I did not found the time to implement it in a reasonable delay. But I might still want to implement it at some point. On Fri, 2012-07-13 at 15:44:22 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: To be able to

Bug#681474: Dpkg::Vendor: should support /etc/os-release and /etc/os-release.d/*

2012-10-28 Thread Jonathan Nieder
Raphael Hertzog wrote: Why would it be better to deploy a dpkg-specific file over a generic file even if dpkg is the only software making use of that generic file? Because it makes the purpose of the file clearer, and if other programs make use of files with

Bug#681474: Dpkg::Vendor: should support /etc/os-release and /etc/os-release.d/*

2012-10-28 Thread Guillem Jover
On Sun, 2012-10-28 at 21:04:31 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: On Sat, 27 Oct 2012, Guillem Jover wrote: Control: tag -1 wontfix *shrug* I filed it because I did not found the time to implement it in a reasonable delay. But I might still want to implement it at some point. Well,

Bug#691449: dpkg-buildflags should have an export mode for shell scripts

2012-10-28 Thread Guillem Jover
On Sun, 2012-10-28 at 02:53:57 -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: Guillem Jover wrote: Yeah, one of the things I checked was if an EXAMPLE section was present in the man page at all, or more detail about the quoting, given the confusion. So I think this really makes sense. But the QUOTING