On 2013-01-08 19:22, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Niels Thykier writes:
>
>> No we do not atm. We could create a profile that is good starting point
>> for derivatives, but I am not sure how to make it a default profile for
>> derivatives without their own profile (with special casing).
>
> Another in
Niels Thykier writes:
> No we do not atm. We could create a profile that is good starting point
> for derivatives, but I am not sure how to make it a default profile for
> derivatives without their own profile (with special casing).
Another interesting way to approach this would be to create a
On 2013-01-08 14:18, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> Back in 2006, a discussion and poll were help in the Debian community to
> determine the most appropriate way to handle the Maintainer field in the
> package metadata for distributions derived from Debian.
>
> It has been voted and agreed to change th
Back in 2006, a discussion and poll were help in the Debian community to
determine the most appropriate way to handle the Maintainer field in the
package metadata for distributions derived from Debian.
It has been voted and agreed to change the Maintainer field in the
packages (across the board),
Russ Allbery left as an exercise for the reader:
> We do have a mechanism for adding information about derivatives in the
> form of profiles. I don't know if SprezzOS already has one, or if that
> facility would handle this particular case. (I'm a bit behind in
> following recent development.)
Y
Nick Black writes:
> Russ Allbery left as an exercise for the reader:
>> I certainly have no objections to recognizing the header for derivatives,
>> where it serves a very useful purpose.
> Outstanding. I'm sorry if I misunderstood you! In that case, rather than
> forking, I'll just maintain th
Russ Allbery left as an exercise for the reader:
> But it may be that I'm overthinking this; I suppose it's hard to see what
I'd like to think that's the case.
> I certainly have no objections to recognizing the header for derivatives,
> where it serves a very useful purpose.
Outstanding. I'm so
Nick Black writes:
> I can assure you that close to 90% of SprezzOS packages use the flag, as
> do a great many Ubuntu packages. Furthermore, anyone following the Debian
> documentation at
> http://wiki.debian.org/Derivatives/Guidelines
> is going to use this field. Please see "Packages",
[ I've added Paul Wise as a CC, as he's a very knowledgeable and thoughtful
liason to the Derivatives community. This seems better than CC'ing the
entire derivatives list. Paul, any contributions? ]
Russ Allbery left as an exercise for the reader:
> I don't believe there's any history of using
Nick Black writes:
> It seems that, even in the case of Debian, this field might be correctly
> used when e.g. importing packages that originated in SprezzOS, Ubuntu,
> or any other derivative that correctly sets the Maintainer field on new
> packages. Thus, this field ought be globally allowed.
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.10.3
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
Dear Maintainer,
The lintian tool doesn't appear to be aware of XSBC-Original-Maintainer, the
source field recommended in the Debian Derivatives Best Practices document. As
a result, it flags all of our (SprezzOS's) packages with a w
11 matches
Mail list logo
