Re: [DEP 8] About the Restrictions and Features field.

2012-06-25 Thread Stefano Zacchiroli
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 02:57:25PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > But I still think this would be a good idea: > > > Perhaps it would be better to have the wiki page point to a suitable > > gitweb page ? This one perhaps: > > > > > > http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=autopkgtest/autopkgtest.gi

Re: [DEP 8] About the Restrictions and Features field.

2012-06-25 Thread Ian Jackson
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: [DEP 8] About the Restrictions and Features field."): > Stefano Zacchiroli writes ("Re: [DEP 8] About the Restrictions and Features > field."): > > Indeed, sorry about that. I tried to merge the changes ~30 mins ago, but > > I first n

Re: [DEP 8] About the Restrictions and Features field.

2012-06-25 Thread Ian Jackson
Stefano Zacchiroli writes ("Re: [DEP 8] About the Restrictions and Features field."): > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 03:15:56PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote: > > Apparently http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep8/ is not being kept > > up-to-date. :| > > Indeed, sorry about that. I

Re: [DEP 8] About the Restrictions and Features field.

2012-06-25 Thread Stefano Zacchiroli
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 03:15:56PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote: > | autopkgtest (2.0.0) unstable; urgency=medium > | > | * Incompatible test declaration spec changes: > | - no-build-needed is now the default; build-needed is a Restriction > |that tests which need it have to declare. > >

Re: [DEP 8] About the Restrictions and Features field.

2012-06-25 Thread Jakub Wilk
* Charles Plessy , 2012-06-23, 12:33: reading DEP 8's appendix, I wonder about the necessity to keep separate Restrictions and Features fields. For instance, the no-build-needed Feature could also be a needs-build restriction. I noticed this only today: | autopkgtest (2.0.0) unstable; urgency

Re: [DEP 8] About the Restrictions and Features field.

2012-06-25 Thread Ian Jackson
Charles Plessy writes ("[DEP 8] About the Restrictions and Features field."): > reading DEP 8's appendix, I wonder about the necessity to keep separate > Restrictions and Features fields. For instance, the no-build-needed Feature > could also be a needs-build r

[DEP 8] About the Restrictions and Features field.

2012-06-22 Thread Charles Plessy
Dear Ian, Iustin and Stefano, reading DEP 8's appendix, I wonder about the necessity to keep separate Restrictions and Features fields. For instance, the no-build-needed Feature could also be a needs-build restriction. Perhaps the specification can be simplified by dropping the Features field ?