Yann Dirson writes:
> Joey Hess writes:
> > No, there are references to base in policy.
>
> Ah yes, how did I miss it ... ? Looks like it's just defined the way
> it is not used, so throwing it out may not be a big deal :)
>
> > See my post to debian-policy.
>
> I will look for it.
Joey Hess writes:
> Darren O. Benham wrote:
> > Nothing in policy. Main and priority levels are all that are mentioned.
>
> No, there are references to base in policy.
Ah yes, how did I miss it ... ? Looks like it's just defined the way
it is not used, so throwing it out may not be a big de
Darren O. Benham wrote:
> Nothing in policy. Main and priority levels are all that are mentioned.
No, there are references to base in policy. See my post to debian-policy.
--
see shy jo
Darren O. Benham writes:
> The original authors of Lintian, however, felt value in including base and
> oldlibs in the check.
It's their choice ;)
> For my opinion, base section should either be defined as to what goes in
> and who decides or the base section removed.
I choose the second ;)
On Sun, Dec 05, 1999 at 10:58:55PM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> Darren O. Benham writes:
> > Please be aware that console-tools is in base but
> > the dependency console-data (>> 1999.08.29-3)
> > can not be met with packages in base.
> >
> > This should be a release critical bug. However, th
5 matches
Mail list logo
