Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I would agree, if this were extended to all the maintainers of
> the policy packages (does not seem fair to single out just me from
> the team). The current list of maintainers, who all have write
> access to the CVS repository, are:
>
> 1. Michael Alan D
James Troup wrote:
>Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Maintainers are encouraged to preserve the modification times of
>> the upstream source files in a package, to the extent possible.
>
>This is pedantry, but is "to the extent possible" really the best
>possible wo
Hi
>>"James" == James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
James> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Maintainers are encouraged to preserve the modification times of
>> the upstream source files in a package, to the extent possible.
James> This is pedantry, but is "to the extent pos
On Fri, Oct 30, 1998 at 02:14:06AM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Currently, the packaging manual only says that the `build' target of
> debian/rules has to be non-interactive. Since an interactive
> debian/rules script makes it impossible to autocompile that package
> and also ma
On Fri, Oct 30, 1998 at 02:05:14AM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> This has been already presented to the list and had been accepted, but
> Christian did not have time to actually edit the file.
Seconded.
David
On Fri, Oct 30, 1998 at 01:58:12AM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>dpkg-shlibdeps debian/tmp/usr/{bin,sbin}/*
..
> The last line should be changed to:
> dpkg-shlibdeps debian/tmp/usr/bin/* debian/tmp/usr/sbin/*
> to eliminate the bashism
Seconded.
David
On Wed, Oct 28, 1998 at 10:29:10PM +0100, Philipp Frauenfelder wrote:
>I found that all I needed was covered by the install script
>except the uucp setup. I had the read a lot of docs the figure
>out how it is done: in the docs, the uucp setup is treated as a
>trivial example and those are sprea
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Maintainers are encouraged to preserve the modification times of
> the upstream source files in a package, to the extent possible.
This is pedantry, but is "to the extent possible" really the best
possible wording? It doesn't sound right to me in
Hi,
>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian> Could you please clarify exactly what text you want to add to the
Ian> policy manual ?
==
Time Stamps
Maintainers are encouraged to preserve the modification times o
Package: debian-policy
Version: after slink release
Severity: wishlist
In base-files, I have recently moved the four licenses in /usr/doc/copyright/*
to /usr/share/common-licenses, creating compatibility symlinks at the
same time (i.e. from old to new locations).
Since these files are mentioned
Hi,
>>"Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joey> I think this verges on the ridiculous. Could we agree to let at
Joey> least one person (if Manoj is going to do the bulk of the work
Joey> on the policy manual for now, let it be him), be allowed to
Joey> make small spelling and typo
> Currently, the packaging manual only says that the `build' target of
> debian/rules has to be non-interactive. Since an interactive
> debian/rules script makes it impossible to autocompile that package
> and also makes it hard for other people to reproduce the same binary
>
> The last line should be changed to:
> dpkg-shlibdeps debian/tmp/usr/bin/* debian/tmp/usr/sbin/*
> to eliminate the bashism
>
> I am now looking for seconds for this proposal.
Seconded.
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Bug#15946: [PROPOSED] time stamps should be
preserved"):
...
> 1. time stamps should be preserved
> --
>
> This has been already presented to the list and had been accepted, but
> Christian did not have time to actually edit the
Guy Hulbert wrote:
>On Fri, 30 Oct 1998, Oliver Elphick wrote:
>OE> The development version is available at http://www.debian.org/~elphick/d
>dp/manu
>OE> als.html/system-administrator/index.html
>
>Nope. Try:
>
>http://www.debian.org/~elphick/manuals.html/system-administrato
Joey Hess writes ("FWD: Bug#22007: [PROPOSED] Fixing of typo in packaging
manual"):
> Following this email is about 60 lines of text to make a small change to the
> policy manual - s/ina/in a/.
>
> I think this verges on the ridiculous. Could we agree to let at least one
> person (if Manoj is goi
On Fri, 30 Oct 1998, Oliver Elphick wrote:
OE> -- Forwarded message --
OE> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 08:00:28 +
OE> From: Oliver Elphick
OE> To: Shaleh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OE> Cc: debian-policy@lists.debian.org
OE> Subject: Re: Proposal: remove the Sysadmin manual referece
OE> R
On Fri, Oct 30, 1998 at 01:13:30AM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Following this email is about 60 lines of text to make a small change to the
> policy manual - s/ina/in a/.
>
> I think this verges on the ridiculous. Could we agree to let at least one
> person (if Manoj is going to do the bulk of the w
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Native Debian packages (i.e., packages which have been written
> especially for Debian) whose version numbers include dates should
> always use the `-MM-DD' format.
That's a stunningly bad idea. From Chapter 5 of the Packaging ma
On 30 Oct 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Native Debian packages (i.e., packages which have been written
> especially for Debian) whose version numbers include dates should
> always use the `-MM-DD' format.
James Troup pointed out some time ago that this probably breaks another
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1. Package build process must be non-interactive
>
>
> This has been already presented to the list and had been accepted, but
> Christian did not have time to actually edit the file.
>
>
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2.1. Change
> ---
>
> In general, Debian packages should use the same version numbers as the
> upstream sources.
>
> However, in some cases where the upstream version number is based on a
> date (e.g., a development `sna
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1. Fixing of typo in packaging manual
> --
>
> This has been already presented to the list and had been accepted, but
> Christian did not have time to actually edit the file.
>
> At the bottom, it says
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1. time stamps should be preserved
> --
>
> This has been already presented to the list and had been accepted, but
> Christian did not have time to actually edit the file.
>
> Most of our packages `tou
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1. Bashism
> --
>
> The Debian Packaging Manual says:
>
> 12.2.4.1 If your package doesn't provide a shared library
>
>Put a call to dpkg-shlibs into your debian/rules file. If your package
>contains only binaries (e.g. no sc
On Fri, Oct 30, 1998 at 02:08:11AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> [PROPOSED] Fixing of typo in packaging manual
> --
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> $Revision: 1.1 $
On Fri, Oct 30, 1998 at 02:08:11AM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> [PROPOSED] Fixing of typo in packaging manual
> At the bottom, it says "ina" instead of "in a".
Seconded.
Ray
--
UNFAIR Term applied to advantages enjoyed by other people which we tried
to cheat them out
On Fri, Oct 30, 1998 at 02:14:06AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> [PROPOSED] Package build process must be non-interactive
>
>
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
On Fri, Oct 30, 1998 at 02:05:14AM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> [PROPOSED] time stamps should be preserved
> According to a recent discussion on debian-policy on this subject we
> consider this topic as `nice-to-have', but without priority.
> Maintainers are enco
On Fri, Oct 30, 1998 at 01:58:12AM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> [PROPOSED] bashism in Packaging Manual
Seconded.
Ray
--
UNFAIR Term applied to advantages enjoyed by other people which we tried
to cheat them out of and didn't manage. See also DISHONESTY, SNEAKY,
UNDERHAND
I second all of these proposals. Namely:
Bug#15946: [PROPOSED] time stamps should be preserved
Bug#22007: [PROPOSED] Fixing of typo in packaging manual
Bug#17620: [PROPOSED] Package build process mus
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The last line should be changed to:
> dpkg-shlibdeps debian/tmp/usr/bin/* debian/tmp/usr/sbin/*
> to eliminate the bashism
>
> I am now looking for seconds for this proposal.
Seconded.
(Though I think it's silly to have to go through this rig
Following this email is about 60 lines of text to make a small change to the
policy manual - s/ina/in a/.
I think this verges on the ridiculous. Could we agree to let at least one
person (if Manoj is going to do the bulk of the work on the policy manual
for now, let it be him), be allowed to make
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> In general, Debian packages should use the same version numbers as the
> upstream sources.
>
> However, in some cases where the upstream version number is based on a
> date (e.g., a development `snapshot' release) dpkg cannot handle these
> versi
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 14701 [PROPOSED] Fix bashism in Packaging Manual
Bug#14701: dpkg: bashism in Packaging Manual
Changed bug title.
> retitle 15946 [PROPOSED] time stamps should be preserved
Bug#15946: dpkg: packaging manual: time stamps should be preserved
Chang
[PROPOSED] Fixing of typo in packaging manual
--
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
$Revision: 1.1 $
Copyright Notice
Copyright © 1998 by Manoj Srivasta
[PROPOSED]: About versions based on dates
-
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
$Revision: 1.2 $
Copyright Notice
Copyright © 1998 by Manoj Srivastav
[PROPOSED] Package build process must be non-interactive
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
$Revision: 1.1 $
Copyright Notice
Copyright © 1998 by M
[PROPOSED] time stamps should be preserved
--
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
$Revision: 1.1 $
Copyright Notice
Copyright © 1998 by Manoj Srivastava.
[PROPOSED] bashism in Packaging Manual
--
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
$Revision: 1.3 $
Copyright Notice
Copyright © 1998 by Manoj Srivastava.
Well, congratulations to the first birth of the new standards process!
:)
Ben
--
Brought to you by the letters Q and G and the number 19.
"He's kissing Christian.. and it's making you die." -- that dog.
Debian GNU/Linux -- where do you want to go tomorrow? http://www.debian.org/
I'm on FurryMUC
On Thu, Oct 22, 1998 at 07:40:15PM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
>
> The main point are: `Do things in a way that old programs would still
> work.' You can't know what weird setup a user is trying to use, perhaps he
> has a custom CGI script to read manpages, one no debian-developer knows of.
Shaleh wrote:
>The policy manual has long had (at least 1.5 years) a reference or three to
>the
>Sysadmin Manual -- it does not exist nor does it seem to be appearing soon.
>Why is it still there?
Counter-Proposal: Lets get it written!
The development version is available at http:/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Format: 1.5
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 15:16:52 -0600
Source: debian-policy
Binary: debian-policy
Architecture: source all
Version: 2.5.0.0
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Description:
debian-policy - Debian Poli
The policy manual has long had (at least 1.5 years) a reference or three to the
Sysadmin Manual -- it does not exist nor does it seem to be appearing soon.
Why is it still there?
45 matches
Mail list logo
