On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:26:03AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> > Usually I argue for relaxing it to a should. In this case, I think we can
> > flesh out the exception somewhat better and preserve the must.
> >
> > Binary executables must not be stati
Hi,
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Usually I argue for relaxing it to a should. In this case, I think we can
> flesh out the exception somewhat better and preserve the must.
>
> Binary executables must not be statically linked with the GNU C
> library, since this prevents the binary f
Bill Allombert writes:
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 06:00:13PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> This is the case that we're talking about here. In other words,
>> *entirely* static binaries. What you get with gcc -static.
> Thus I propose the attached patch.
> (I used 'must' instead of 'should' sinc
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 10:46:48AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> > --- a/policy.sgml
> > +++ b/policy.sgml
> > @@ -8466,7 +8466,11 @@ fi
> > renamed. If a consensus cannot be reached, both
> > programs must be renamed.
> >
> > -
> > +
> > +
Hi,
Bill Allombert wrote:
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -8466,7 +8466,11 @@ fi
> renamed. If a consensus cannot be reached, both
> programs must be renamed.
>
> -
> +
> + Binary executables must not be statically linked with the
> + G
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 06:00:13PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bill Allombert writes:
> > On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 04:43:18PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> Unless I'm missing something, and I did a text search through Policy,
> >> Policy is currently silent on the topic of statically linked b
Bill Allombert writes:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 04:43:18PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Unless I'm missing something, and I did a text search through Policy,
>> Policy is currently silent on the topic of statically linked binaries
>> other than a brief mention in a footnote on convenience copie
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 04:43:18PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.8.3.0
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Unless I'm missing something, and I did a text search through Policy,
> Policy is currently silent on the topic of statically linked binaries
> other than a brief ment
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 18:55:45 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Where was announced the requirement from the FTP team ?
>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2009/10/msg4.html
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 04:43:18PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.8.3.0
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Unless I'm missing something, and I did a text search through Policy,
> Policy is currently silent on the topic of statically linked binaries
> other than a brief ment
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.3.0
Severity: wishlist
Unless I'm missing something, and I did a text search through Policy,
Policy is currently silent on the topic of statically linked binaries
other than a brief mention in a footnote on convenience copies of code.
I believe we should say th
11 matches
Mail list logo
