On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 01:47:26PM +0200, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> Is it a technical requirement (of dpkg, apt, and/or dak), that packages be
> named ${pkgname}_${version}_${arch}.${ext} (${pkgname}_${version}.${ext} for
> source), or merely (or mostly) policy?
It's a technical requirement for a
Is it a technical requirement (of dpkg, apt, and/or dak), that packages be
named ${pkgname}_${version}_${arch}.${ext} (${pkgname}_${version}.${ext} for
source), or merely (or mostly) policy?
I note that dpkg-deb and dpkg-source name files correctly, in normal use at
least, and that jennifer (of
2 matches
Mail list logo
