On Sun, Jul 16, 2023 at 7:50 AM Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> I now recall: The Rust library packages wreaking havoc by prematurely
> entering testing is (at least partly) due to the Rust team choosing to
> flag all(!) autopkgtests as flaky, so not really a concern for other
> teams (read: just don't
Quoting Jonas Smedegaard (2023-07-15 10:05:24)
> Quoting Nicolas Boulenguez (2023-07-12 15:55:09)
> > The Ada maintainers are considering a new naming scheme for -dev packages,
> > where
> > libada-foo-dev Provides: libada-foo-dev-HASH.
> > source packages Build-Depend: libada-foo-dev
> > bin
Hi
Le sam. 15 juil. 2023, 10:05, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
> Quoting Nicolas Boulenguez (2023-07-12 15:55:09)
> > The Ada maintainers are considering a new naming scheme for -dev
> packages,
> > where
> > libada-foo-dev Provides: libada-foo-dev-HASH.
> > source packages Build-Depend: libada
Quoting Nicolas Boulenguez (2023-07-12 15:55:09)
> The Ada maintainers are considering a new naming scheme for -dev packages,
> where
> libada-foo-dev Provides: libada-foo-dev-HASH.
> source packages Build-Depend: libada-foo-dev
> binary -dev packages Depend: libada-foo-dev-HASH
> The intent
On August 1, 2006 at 1:04PM +0100,
ian (at davenant.greenend.org.uk) wrote:
> Tatsuya Kinoshita writes ("Re: virtual packages `pinentry' and
> `pinentry-x11'"):
> > Hmm, I have not yet understand the policy 3.6:
> >
> > | All packages should use
Tatsuya Kinoshita writes ("Re: virtual packages `pinentry' and `pinentry-x11'"):
> Hmm, I have not yet understand the policy 3.6:
>
> | All packages should use virtual package names where appropriate, and
> | arrange to create new ones if necessa
On 10730 March 1977, Tatsuya Kinoshita wrote:
> | All packages should use virtual package names where appropriate, and
> | arrange to create new ones if necessary. They should not use virtual
> | package names (except privately, amongst a cooperating group of
> | packages) unl
On July 29, 2006 at 4:02PM +0200,
joerg (at debian.org) wrote:
> > At the moment, should `pinentry' be added to the list of virtual
> > package names? If so, I'll file a wishlist bug against debian-policy.
>
> Nope. If it can work as the pinentry thing then provide it. Thats it for you.
Hmm, I h
On 10730 March 1977, Tatsuya Kinoshita wrote:
> At the moment, should `pinentry' be added to the list of virtual
> package names? If so, I'll file a wishlist bug against debian-policy.
Nope. If it can work as the pinentry thing then provide it. Thats it for you.
--
bye Joerg
I read the DUMP an
On July 29, 2006 at 1:18PM +0200,
myon (at debian.org) wrote:
> > Should `pinentry' and `pinentry-x11' be added to the list of
> > virtual package names?
> Policy: 3.6. Virtual packages
>
> All packages should use virtual package names where appropriate, and
> arrange to create new ones
Re: Tatsuya Kinoshita 2006-07-29 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Should `pinentry' and `pinentry-x11' be added to the list of
> virtual package names?
>
> I've discovered that the virtual package `pinentry' is provided by
> pinentry-curses, pinentry-gtk, pinentry-gtk2 and pinentry-qt, and
> the virtual pack
On May 25, Christian Schwarz wrote
> > Whether it depends, recommends or suggests dotfile-module, dselect would
> > still
> > be satisfied when just one module is selected, so when new modules appear
> > they
> > won't be selected automatically. This is much easier to do than make a
> > depend
On Sun, 25 May 1997, Igor Grobman wrote:
> On May 25, Craig Sanders wrote
> >
> > On Sun, 25 May 1997, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> >
> > > I fully agree to what Manoj said. Since the dotfile generator will
> > > probably get widely used by other packages we should put this package on
> > > our li
On May 25, Craig Sanders wrote
>
> On Sun, 25 May 1997, Christian Schwarz wrote:
>
> > I fully agree to what Manoj said. Since the dotfile generator will
> > probably get widely used by other packages we should put this package on
> > our list of "public virtual packages".
> >
> > Since I maint
On Sun, 25 May 1997, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> I fully agree to what Manoj said. Since the dotfile generator will
> probably get widely used by other packages we should put this package on
> our list of "public virtual packages".
>
> Since I maintain this list, I suggest the following addition
On Sat, 24 May 1997, Igor Grobman wrote:
> I've been packaging dotfile generator, and have a small question
> related to virtual packages. The package will be multi-binary. It
> consists of the main dotfile package, and a number of modules (currently 8).
> I
> want each of the modules to prov
Hi,
Oh, I think that it is not unreasonable to assume that other
packages may depend on this if this becomes the ``official'' method
to handle per user configuration in Debian, so I think that this
definitely qualifies for a discussion here.
Consider this a ``no objections from
Ian Murdock writes ("Re: virtual packages and X11 vs. X11R"):
> Well, the X11R5 and X11R6 libraries weren't compatible, and it is
> likely the X11R6 and X11R7 libraries won't be, either. In this
> case, the packages will have to be updated. We don't want peopl
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 95 16:15:50 PDT
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Mitchell)
Would it make sense to further virtualize X11R5 and X11R6 and
provide a virtual X11 package for use as a dependency? If we
don't do this, what happens when X11R7 is released? Must all
X11R6-dependent pack
19 matches
Mail list logo
