On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 12:03:44AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> base-files admin ? misc ?
> base-passwd admin ? misc ?
I think we can keep a section named "base". Some packages, like the
above, as well as the kernel packages, fit naturally into that section.
We just drop the r
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 12:30:41AM +0100, Thomas Schoepf wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 12:03:44AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> > Also maybe a lintian test can be written to print an error on
> > "Section: base". Any volunteer for this one ?
>
> I'd say taking 'base' out of 'known_sections' shou
Darren O. Benham writes:
> Is this, basicly, a part of policy now?
As stated earlier...
> > > On Thu, Nov 25, 1999 at 11:01:07PM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> > > > I cannot find a reason currently for its existance, nor can I find a
> > > > reference to it in the Policy and Packaging manua
Is this, basicly, a part of policy now?
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 12:03:44AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> Richard Braakman writes:
> > On Thu, Nov 25, 1999 at 11:01:07PM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> > > I cannot find a reason currently for its existance, nor can I find a
> > > reference to it in
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 12:03:44AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> Also maybe a lintian test can be written to print an error on
> "Section: base". Any volunteer for this one ?
I'd say taking 'base' out of 'known_sections' should be sufficient.
BTW: why is the lintian 'unkown-section' tag only Type:
Richard Braakman writes:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 1999 at 11:01:07PM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> > I cannot find a reason currently for its existance, nor can I find a
> > reference to it in the Policy and Packaging manuals.
>
> I see no reason for it either.
>
> > If there's no (more) reason, I
6 matches
Mail list logo
