-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi folks,
What is Debian's policy, if upstream provides its own debian directory
or package build procedure? Is upstream always right?
Does or should this source package become a native package? How do I
include patches?
What if upstream's package
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Harald Dunkel wrote:
What is Debian's policy, if upstream provides its own debian
directory or package build procedure? Is upstream always right?
There's no official policy, but generally speaking, you should use a
non-native package. The one exception to this is a case
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 12:41:00PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
You can also suggest to upstream that they include the debian
directory in a examples directory or similar, so that it doesn't get
in the way of packaging (or just not distribute it in the main package
at all.)
See also
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 08:21:44PM +0100, Harald Dunkel wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi folks,
Hi Harald
What is Debian's policy, if upstream provides its own debian directory
or package build procedure? Is upstream always right?
I guess it depends on how usable
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 08:21:44PM +0100, Harald Dunkel wrote:
What is Debian's policy, if upstream provides its own debian directory
or package build procedure?
[...]
Of course I checked Debian's Policy Manual, but AFAICS this subject
has been successfully ignored by now. Any helpful comment
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 12:41:00PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Harald Dunkel wrote:
What is Debian's policy, if upstream provides its own debian
directory or package build procedure? Is upstream always right?
There's no official policy, but generally speaking, you
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 12:44:14AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 12:41:00PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
You can also suggest to upstream that they include the debian
directory in a examples directory or similar, so that it doesn't get
in the way of packaging (or
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 07:46:46PM +, The Fungi wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 08:21:44PM +0100, Harald Dunkel wrote:
What is Debian's policy, if upstream provides its own debian directory
or package build procedure?
[...]
Of course I checked Debian's Policy Manual, but AFAICS this
On 2011-03-18, Harald Dunkel ha...@afaics.de wrote:
Is upstream always right?
The general answer here is 'no, upstream is never right, but often they
can be educated'
(when coming to packaging ideas and such)
/Sune
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 07:46:46PM +, The Fungi wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 08:21:44PM +0100, Harald Dunkel wrote:
What is Debian's policy, if upstream provides its own debian directory
or package build procedure?
Not ignored at all... maintainers who find an upstream debian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/18/11 20:57, Harald Jenny wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 07:46:46PM +, The Fungi wrote:
Not ignored at all... maintainers who find an upstream debian
directory getting in the way (and who are unable to successfully
convince upstream of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/18/11 21:13, Adam Borowski wrote:
The 3.0 format has a number of upsides and one downside: quilt. Sadly, the
variants are only 3.0 (native) which doesn't apply and 3.0 (quilt). The
latter interacts disastrously with keeping the packaging
Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl writes:
The 3.0 format has a number of upsides and one downside: quilt. Sadly,
the variants are only 3.0 (native) which doesn't apply and 3.0 (quilt).
The latter interacts disastrously with keeping the packaging under
version control -- and the very idea of
13 matches
Mail list logo
