On Wed, Oct 20, 1999 at 02:11:00AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > Philippe Troin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > 1) The way the Debian archive works requires the data to be stored
> > > twice (source package and .deb).
> >
> > Why not allow Source only packages ?
>
> Or have a smal
Fabien Ninoles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 09:43:57PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> > Philippe Troin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > 1) The way the Debian archive works requires the data to be stored
> > > twice (source package and .deb).
> >
> > Why not
On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 09:43:57PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> Philippe Troin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 1) The way the Debian archive works requires the data to be stored
> > twice (source package and .deb).
>
> Why not allow Source only packages ?
Because installing such pac
On Wed, Oct 20, 1999 at 10:57:51PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> Torsten Landschoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 09:43:57PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> >
> > > Why not allow Source only packages ?
> >
> > That will win nothing. You can't use apt-get on them,
On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 09:29:53PM +, Alexander Koch wrote:
> [f'up]
>
> On Tue, 19 October 1999 21:43:57 +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> > Why not allow Source only packages ?
>
> Something like that is the only workable thing, methinks.
> Having a source where a source is 99+ % the same da
On Fri, Oct 22, 1999 at 04:56:28PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
>
> > [1 ]
> > On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 11:00:14PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 09:43:57PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> > > > Why not allow Source only packages ?
> > >
Anthony Towns writes:
> [1 ]
> On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 11:00:14PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 09:43:57PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> > > Why not allow Source only packages ?
> > That will win nothing. You can't use apt-get on them, have to rebuilt
> > and h
On Wed, Oct 20, 1999 at 05:15:38PM +, Zygo Blaxell wrote:
> Here's a proposal:
ObShudder: How about a patch instead?
> Maintainers could have the option of not uploading a
> ..deb at all if their packages
Also, there doesn't seem to be any way of making a changes file to upload
source witho
Hi.
I like Fabien's idea of "user can choose a Small and Lean Debian, or
a Big and Resourceful Debian" :)
# well, I should go to -policy and express my placet for your proposal.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Fabien Ninoles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > On 18 Oct 1999 18:16:58 -0700, Phili
Torsten Landschoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 09:43:57PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
>
> > Why not allow Source only packages ?
>
> That will win nothing. You can't use apt-get on them, have to rebuilt
> and have them twice locally.
You could set the arch flag i
On 19-Oct-99 Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> Why not allow Source only packages ?
And use apt-get source.
---
Christian Surchi, [EMAIL PROTECTED], www.firenze.linux.it/~csurchi
PGP fingerprint = 05 CE 0B BE BF FC B6 14 53 CA C7 8E AE 3A F2 6A
GPG fingerprint = D1E2 9A9D 1712 0E94 8671
On 19-Oct-99 Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> That will win nothing. You can't use apt-get on them, have to rebuilt
> and have them twice locally.
Yes, but the problem is the mirrors space, not the space on users disks.
---
Christian Surchi, [EMAIL PROTECTED], www.firenze.linux.it/~csurchi
> Hi,
>
> > NO!! RFCs are *very* important when writing software. They are the
> > standards upon which a large amount of free software is based and are
> > absolutely crucial to developers. Why should they have to hunt the
> > web for such stuff?
>
> I think it's possible for _everyone_ to mi
On Wed, 20 Oct 1999 14:06:50 +1000, Anthony Towns
wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 11:00:14PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 09:43:57PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
>> > Why not allow Source only packages ?
>> That will win nothing. You can't use apt-get on them, hav
Hi,
> NO!! RFCs are *very* important when writing software. They are the
> standards upon which a large amount of free software is based and are
> absolutely crucial to developers. Why should they have to hunt the
> web for such stuff?
I think it's possible for _everyone_ to mirror (for exampl
On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 11:37:06PM +0200, Petr Cech wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 07:10:09PM + , Zygo Blaxell wrote:
> > On 18 Oct 1999 18:16:58 -0700, Philippe Troin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > > 3) Where do we stop ? As someone says, there's nothing preventing
> > > me fro
> Philippe Troin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 1) The way the Debian archive works requires the data to be stored
> > twice (source package and .deb).
>
> Why not allow Source only packages ?
Or have a small .deb which installs the data and the data as a
tar.gz/tar.bz2 file which is s
On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 11:00:14PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 09:43:57PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> > Why not allow Source only packages ?
> That will win nothing. You can't use apt-get on them, have to rebuilt
> and have them twice locally.
$ apt-get source
On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 09:43:57PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> Why not allow Source only packages ?
That will win nothing. You can't use apt-get on them, have to rebuilt
and have them twice locally.
cu
Torsten
On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 07:10:09PM + , Zygo Blaxell wrote:
> On 18 Oct 1999 18:16:58 -0700, Philippe Troin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> > 3) Where do we stop ? As someone says, there's nothing preventing
> > me from uploading as debian package every single .wav or .mov
> > file
[f'up]
On Tue, 19 October 1999 21:43:57 +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> Why not allow Source only packages ?
Something like that is the only workable thing, methinks.
Having a source where a source is 99+ % the same data is waste.
Before that is agreed on (and there is a need, I read it
here) I
Philippe Troin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1) The way the Debian archive works requires the data to be stored
> twice (source package and .deb).
Why not allow Source only packages ?
May the Source be with you.
Goswin
On 18 Oct 1999 18:16:58 -0700, Philippe Troin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think we need a policy on "pure data" packages.
Start by defining what a "pure data" package is. Here's my humble attempt:
"pure data packages are packages which consist of minimal debian/rules
which simply re-package a
On Mon, Oct 18, 1999 at 09:57:30PM -0400, Decklin Foster wrote:
> Philippe Troin writes:
>
>
> > Comments welcome, but ON debian-project only please.
>
> I like it, but... do I get to keep fortune? I *like* my fortunes, and
> I feel bad agreeing with your sentiments on data whilst using this
> p
On 19 Oct 1999, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark W. Eichin) wrote:
> Ports has probably advanced, you'd really want * set of mirrors
> (multiple or pattern URLs) * md5sum for exact match, but
> easy-to-upgrade option
The FreeBSD users that I know like the ports system very much. It's
pretty slick.
> The
I also find it *very* useful to have doc-rfc and doc-iana. I'd keep
fortune-data out of tradition. On the other hand, I'd ditch all of
the linux magazines (lg, pluto, I think there are others?) without a
second thought...
I'd argue that doc-rfc has sort of the same niche as doc-HOWTO. Not
sure
> Examples of data packages which does NOT belong to debian (IMHO):
> 2) Any kind of text easily findable on the web (RFCs (even though I
> love to have RFCs around, but we have a draw a line))
NO!! RFCs are *very* important when writing software. They are the
standards upon which a large
On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 01:17:56PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Like bitchx, or SATAN, or nmap, or devfs? :)
Or SeX? ;-)
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
""
(John Cage)
> Debian is about creating a Unix/linux/hurd distribution, not about
> packaging everything under the sun in the .deb format.
>
> I think we need a policy on "pure data" packages.
I tend to agree with you. I once suggested at least moving them out
of "main" and in to "doc" or "text" or some othe
On Mon, Oct 18, 1999 at 06:16:58PM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote:
> "Pure data" packages are a problem because:
> 2) There is NO packaging needed. It's just a tar ball.
Well, it has to be arranged according to policy (ie, /usr/share/doc/foo,
instead of just ./foo), and running things like install-
Philippe Troin writes:
> Comments welcome, but ON debian-project only please.
I like it, but... do I get to keep fortune? I *like* my fortunes, and
I feel bad agreeing with your sentiments on data whilst using this
package.
--
Decklin
Written with Debian GNU/Linux - http://www.debian.org/
[This is my last post on -devel on this topic. More discussion
encouraged in debian-project.]
Debian is about creating a Unix/linux/hurd distribution, not about
packaging everything under the sun in the .deb format.
I think we need a policy on "pure data" packages.
"Pure data" packages are a pr
32 matches
Mail list logo
