On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 06:03:23PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Debian policy should be the minimalistic set of rules that
packages follow, and expect other packages to foolow too, in order to
have the system be greater than the sum of the parts. This is what
allows packages to dump
Anthony == Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Anthony On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 06:03:23PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Debian policy should be the minimalistic set of rules that
packages follow, and expect other packages to foolow too, in order to
have the system be greater than
Dear Sirs,
AplusCisa
companyproducing software utilities for network management. We
started4 years ago withEthernet on the wire,useful Dos based
program.Our latest product is Anasil ver. 2.2. software network analyzer
for Win 95/98/NT/2000. As it's very advanced network management
Previously Julian Gilbey wrote:
Part I: The Debian Archive
1: DFSG and the sections of the archive (free, non-free, contrib, non-us)
non-us is a different archive.
Part II: Packages and metadata
Refer to a dpkg reference instead and document extra restrictions
Wichert.
--
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 02:30:34PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Julian Gilbey wrote:
Part I: The Debian Archive
1: DFSG and the sections of the archive (free, non-free, contrib, non-us)
non-us is a different archive.
I understand; this was just an imprecise abbreviation ;-)
[Please continue to CC me on any replies.]
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 02:24:14PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa écrivait:
I was hoping to get libpkg-guide (library packaging guide) into
Developers Reference, although the terms and language is quite
Le Thu, May 02, 2002 at 10:05:06AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo écrivait:
- Debian Best Packaging Practices
This item is vague. I assume we're talking about tips and developer
materials not contained in policy?
Yes. It may also include things moved away from policy ... when the
distinction
Julian == Julian Gilbey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Julian On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 02:30:34PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Refer to a dpkg reference instead and document extra restrictions
Julian Surely either everything necessary should be in the dpkg reference or
Julian everything
Adam == Adam Di Carlo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Adam I wish I could work on only this until I was done, leaving the other
Adam bits to other co-maintainers.
Adam Unfortunately I do not yet have any other co-maintainers --
Adam volunteers, anyone?
I would not mind helping out,
Wichert == Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wichert Previously Julian Gilbey wrote:
Surely either everything necessary should be in the dpkg reference or
everything necessary should be in policy.
Wichert I'm not sure. I see them more as complementing each other, much like
[ -policy dropped because this message isn't relevant there ]
On Wed, 2002-05-01 at 19:03, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[...] This is what allows us to
have a menu system, automated completions in bash, auto-recompilation
of elisp packages, and a plethora of other synergies that elevates
Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On the other hand, all packages must not be left to the whimsy
of the dpkg developers either; since potentially large numbers of
packages would be impacted by such changes.
I do hope you trust is to make changes sensibly. In fact the current
reference
12 matches
Mail list logo
