On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 07:35:18AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
* We can set the architecture and default flags (from policy) on the
makefile to be included, and packagers will be able to do the change
and fix any possible problems (progressive opt-in), but once it's
included by all
On Sun, May 10, 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
I'm really surprised to see this approach getting traction. To me, this
seems like a significant, unprecedented departure from the kinds of
interfaces we've mandated in Policy in the past (i.e., environment
variables, executables and command-line
On Sun, 10 May 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
I'm really surprised to see this approach getting traction. To me, this
seems like a significant, unprecedented departure from the kinds of
interfaces we've mandated in Policy in the past (i.e., environment
variables, executables and command-line
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 09:54:11PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
I'm really surprised to see this approach getting traction. To me, this
seems like a significant, unprecedented departure from the kinds of
interfaces we've mandated in Policy in the
On Sunday 10 May 2009 13:56:04 Steve Langasek wrote:
I thought it was generally recognized that it's a Bad Idea to implement
config files using your interpreter's 'include' functionality, but that's
basically what we have here.
Guillem pointed out one problem: Either you do it via a make
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 11:37:46PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Sunday 10 May 2009 13:56:04 Steve Langasek wrote:
I thought it was generally recognized that it's a Bad Idea to implement
config files using your interpreter's 'include' functionality, but that's
basically what we have
On Sun, 2009-05-10 at 23:37 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Sunday 10 May 2009 13:56:04 Steve Langasek wrote:
I thought it was generally recognized that it's a Bad Idea to implement
config files using your interpreter's 'include' functionality, but that's
basically what we have here.
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 11:37:46PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Sunday 10 May 2009 13:56:04 Steve Langasek wrote:
I thought it was generally recognized that it's a Bad Idea to implement
config files using your interpreter's 'include'
Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr writes:
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 09:54:11PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
I'm really surprised to see this approach getting traction. To me, this
seems like a significant, unprecedented departure
On Sun, May 10 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 07:35:18AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
* We can set the architecture and default flags (from policy) on the
makefile to be included, and packagers will be able to do the change
and fix any possible problems (progressive
On Sun, May 10 2009, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
I'm really surprised to see this approach getting traction. To me, this
seems like a significant, unprecedented departure from the kinds of
interfaces we've mandated in Policy in the past (i.e.,
On Sun, May 10 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 11:37:46PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Sunday 10 May 2009 13:56:04 Steve Langasek wrote:
I thought it was generally recognized that it's a Bad Idea to implement
config files using your interpreter's 'include'
12 matches
Mail list logo
