[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Braakman) writes:
> However, I don't know the history behind this. What is the reason for
> not including Section and Priority by default?
Ian and I discussed it when I first started maintaining the archive.
dselect always takes the section and priority from the Packa
On Tue, Jan 06, 1998 at 04:30:00AM +0100, Sten Anderson wrote:
> Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Yesterday, I wrote a script that scans our whole archive for .dsc files
> > (Debian source package description files) and outputs some statistics
> > regarding the `Standards-Versio
On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Dale Scheetz wrote:
>
> > I believe that if these fields are provided in the "package" paragraph,
> > that dpkg should automatically include them in the control fields for the
> > package.
>
> So do I. I don't see any reason why it should not.
>
>
Dale Scheetz wrote:
> I believe that if these fields are provided in the "package" paragraph,
> that dpkg should automatically include them in the control fields for the
> package.
So do I. I don't see any reason why it should not.
> On the other hand, what's 4 characters in the rules file cost
On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > > Do we want all packages to include the Section and Priority fields?
> >
> > Probably.
> > >
> > > If so, then I think it is far more effective to change dpkg's default
> > > be
Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > Do we want all packages to include the Section and Priority fields?
>
> Probably.
> >
> > If so, then I think it is far more effective to change dpkg's default
> > behaviour so that it does include these fields, rather than req
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dale Scheetz) wrote on 06.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Richard Braakman wrote:
> >
> > > Do we want all packages to include the Section and Priority fields?
> >
> > Probably.
>
> I tend to do it like this
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dale Scheetz) wrote on 06.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Richard Braakman wrote:
>
> > Do we want all packages to include the Section and Priority fields?
>
> Probably.
I tend to do it like this:
* don't include them in the first version of the package
*
On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Do we want all packages to include the Section and Priority fields?
Probably.
>
> If so, then I think it is far more effective to change dpkg's default
> behaviour so that it does include these fields, rather than requiring
> an explicit flag -isp.
>
Sten Anderson wrote:
> Now you are at it, I suggest that you also scan the archive for packages
> that fails to include a "Section" and/or "Priority" field. It is far
> too many, and it is quite annoying.
Do we want all packages to include the Section and Priority fields?
If so, then I think it
Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yesterday, I wrote a script that scans our whole archive for .dsc files
> (Debian source package description files) and outputs some statistics
> regarding the `Standards-Version' fields, that is, which policy version
> the packages "claim" to comply
Hi folks!
Yesterday, I wrote a script that scans our whole archive for .dsc files
(Debian source package description files) and outputs some statistics
regarding the `Standards-Version' fields, that is, which policy version
the packages "claim" to comply with (according to the maintainer).
Here
12 matches
Mail list logo
