Le Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 09:08:04PM +0100, Guillem Jover a écrit :
>
> Sorry, I should have added here my usual note about being open to
> reconsideration *if* convincing arguments are put forward. But I
> was pretty much unimpressed with the way this had been brought up.
> Way more so now with the
On 5 February 2014 20:08, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 13:54:17 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Guillem writes, on the bug but not on debian-devel:
>> > Part of the definition of what's and what's not a native package is
>> > the version scheme, and I've never considered that
Sam Hartman writes:
> However, I cannot read that text to imply anything about what happens if
> the Debian revision is present:
> * Policy seems silent on whether the software MAY?SHOULD NOT/MUST NOT be
> written explicitly for Debian (I consider this a feature)
> * Policy appears silent abo
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes:
>> Citation requested. I looked for this today and couldn't find
>> it.
Russ> Policy lacks a section that clearly defines native and
Russ> non-native packages, which is a long-standing bug in Policy.
Russ> Currently, that information is i
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes:
Russ> Ian Jackson writes:
>> Secondly, there doesn't appear to be any support in policy for
>> this restriction.
Russ> Policy definitely supports this restriction, as Guillem
Russ> pointed out. I want to echo that analysis as one of the
Sam Hartman writes:
>> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes:
> Russ> Ian Jackson writes:
> >> Secondly, there doesn't appear to be any support in policy for
> >> this restriction.
> Russ> Policy definitely supports this restriction, as Guillem
> Russ> pointed out. I want to e
Ian Jackson writes:
> Secondly, there doesn't appear to be any support in policy for this
> restriction.
Policy definitely supports this restriction, as Guillem pointed out. I
want to echo that analysis as one of the people to have touched that
portion of the Policy document.
I have always con
Hi!
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 13:54:17 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Guillem writes, on the bug but not on debian-devel:
> > Part of the definition of what's and what's not a native package is
> > the version scheme, and I've never considered that a Debian specific
> > thing specified by its policy. The
Guillem writes, on the bug but not on debian-devel:
> Part of the definition of what's and what's not a native package is
> the version scheme, and I've never considered that a Debian specific
> thing specified by its policy. The fact that dpkg-source has been
> sloppy in the past for format 1.0 do
9 matches
Mail list logo
