On ti, 2010-09-14 at 17:35 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk writes:
Makes sense to me.
Let's define only a single free-form field in the header section now.
I suggest it then be a field specifically for notes regarding source not
being pristine in the sense
On ke, 2010-09-15 at 10:22 +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
I, using my FTPMaster hat, do care a lot that we do not get
$whateveritsname with upload rights that never ever had to show at least
the basic understanding of packaging work. Looking at all the errors
existing Developers do, even
* Gunnar Wolf gw...@gwolf.org [100914 19:25]:
We have carried a major.minor scheme as a release numbering scheme
since the Early Days,
Actually, AFAIK since lenny we no longer use major.minor but
release.andhalf.point.
There just has not been any 5.1.0 (aka lenny-and-half).
Bernhard
Re: Lars Wirzenius 2010-09-15 1284541176.2573.77.ca...@havelock
This reminds me: it would be good to improve not just the quality of our
packages, but our developers.
Just a quick comment here: DM has improved the quality of people
passing NM *a lot*. Historically, we (FD, DAM) have seen lots
[Thijs Kinkhorst, 2010-09-15]
Stability in numbering is worth a lot more than removing an extra .0 from
the string.
+1
--
Piotr Ożarowski Debian GNU/Linux Developer
www.ozarowski.pl www.griffith.cc www.debian.org
GPG Fingerprint: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 15:23:30 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
On tiisdei 14 Septimber 2010, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
So, for the past years we have had x.0.y with growing `y' for point
releases, and skiping to (x+1).0.0. And the zero in the middle carries
no meaning anymore.
It also doesn't do
On 15/09/2010 16:27, Michael Gilbert wrote:
I was thinking about this overnight, and I think dropping .0 does
actually make a lot of sense for marketing/publicity purposes. A
release announcement along the lines of The Debian project is proud
to announce the release of version 6 of the
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 17:12:15 +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
On 15/09/2010 16:27, Michael Gilbert wrote:
I was thinking about this overnight, and I think dropping .0 does
actually make a lot of sense for marketing/publicity purposes. A
release announcement along the lines of The Debian
On Tue Sep 14 12:25, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
We have carried a major.minor scheme as a release numbering scheme
since the Early Days, but it has lost relevance basically since Sarge
(3.1 - But by the time it was finally released, some discussion was
made whether Sarge should be 4.0 as the
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 04:22:43PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Tue Sep 14 12:25, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
We have carried a major.minor scheme as a release numbering scheme
since the Early Days, but it has lost relevance basically since Sarge
(3.1 - But by the time it was finally released,
Andreas Barth a...@not.so.argh.org writes:
* Charles Plessy (ple...@debian.org) [100913 16:25]:
Is this a good way of doing that? The referred-to e-mail says that an
XS-Autobuild header in the debian/control (not copyright) file is
required. Is there a need for a particular header for this
* Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt (h...@ftwca.de) [100915 17:39]:
Andreas Barth a...@not.so.argh.org writes:
* Charles Plessy (ple...@debian.org) [100913 16:25]:
Is this a good way of doing that? The referred-to e-mail says that an
XS-Autobuild header in the debian/control (not copyright) file is
On ke, 2010-09-15 at 17:38 +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
This is only about the field in debian/copyright, not about the field in
debian/control. We don't need the former, only the latter.
In that case I'll remove the X-Autobuild stuff from the DEP5 draft.
Thanks.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
This reminds me: it would be good to improve not just the quality of our
packages, but our developers.
I wholeheartedly agree.
Developing a Linux distribution involves a lot of skills, and stuff
keeps changing all the time. It would perhaps be a good idea to have
14 matches
Mail list logo
