On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 06:55:56PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
>
> --- policy.sgml.orig Sat Sep 8 16:12:53 2001
> +++ policy.sgml Sat Sep 8 17:06:01 2001
> @@ -3711,21 +3711,16 @@
>
>
>
> - must call ldconfig in its postinst
> - script if the first ar
> This is half correct :) I suggest to just refer to dpkg-architecture(1), as
> the technical details may change. In particular, you should not use the
> variables without initializing them
>
> DEB_BUILD_GNU_TYPE := $(shell dpkg-architecture -qDEB_BUILD_GNU_TYPE)
okay.
>
> etc
>
> In general
Dear [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Would you like to send an Email Advertisement to
11,000,000 PEOPLE DAILY for FREE?
===
1) Let's say you... Sell a $24.95 PRODUCT or SERVICE.
2) Let's say you... Broadcast Email to 500,000 PEOPLE DAILY.
3) Let's say you...
On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 06:55:56PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> I am proposing the following patch to policy. The difference from my
> previous proposal is to allow calling "ldconfig" in the "postinst" no
> matter what the arguments are. Detailed rationale follows, below.
>
> --- policy.sgml
On Sun, Sep 09, 2001 at 11:27:36PM -0700, David Kimdon wrote:
> +
> +ifneq ($(DEB_BUILD_GNU_TYPE),$(DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE))
> +# commands and/or variables for cross build
> +else
> +# commands and/or variables for native build
> +endif
> +
This is half correct :) I suggest to
Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 02:00:29AM -0500 wrote:
> * David Kimdon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010910 01:38]:
> > This patch basically says that packages should support
> > cross-compilation. Many packages can already be cross compiled so
>
> Perhaps to the base package, but for all Optional packages to be g
I hereby second <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
--
G. Branden Robinson| There's nothing an agnostic can't
Debian GNU/Linux | do if he doesn't know whether he
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | believes in it or not.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- G
On Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 10:17:21PM +1000, Steve Kowalik wrote:
> > Josip> Please make a list.
> >
> > Indeed. Is there a quick way of checking how many packages are
> > under the current set of common licenses? That count would offer some
> > hints on thresholds of popularity to base a deci
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 10:07:26AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava uttered:
> Josip> Please make a list.
>
> Indeed. Is there a quick way of checking how many packages are
> under the current set of common licenses? That count would offer some
> hints on thresholds of popularity to base a decisio
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Tille, Andreas wrote:
> Well, I´m not familiear with policy decisions. However if I´m not
> completely wrong the MPL seems to be what I would call a *common
> license* if I look at several projects releasing under it. That´s
> why I expected that we would have more packages
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Your Contents file probably didn't include non-US packages.
Exactly this is the reason.
> So, basically, a handful of sources use this... IMHO that's hardly ready for
> inclusion among the current common licenses.
Well, I´m not familiear with policy decisi
* David Kimdon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010910 01:38]:
> This patch basically says that packages should support
> cross-compilation. Many packages can already be cross compiled so
Perhaps to the base package, but for all Optional packages to be given
this burden is pretty non-trival in some packages.
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.5.0
Severity: wishlist
I'd like to make Debian more friendly to porters and embedded systems.
This patch basically says that packages should support
cross-compilation. Many packages can already be cross compiled so
this is more documenting current practice rath
13 matches
Mail list logo
