uch a thing?
"Unix: 30 definitions of regular expressions living under one roof"
D.E. Knuth
Erick Branderhorst http://www.iaehv.nl/users/branderh/
Example is web2c and kpathsea and those big things. So we need more
than one source field and related debian diff field which specify the
patches to be applied at the original sources.
"Unix: 30 definitions of regular expressions living under one roof"
D.E. Knuth
Erick Branderhorst http://www.iaehv.nl/users/branderh/
D.E. Knuth
Erick Branderhorst http://www.iaehv.nl/users/branderh/
> Package: fileutils
> Version: 3.13-2
>
> The fileutils package has an empty /usr/libexec directory in the .deb
> file. I don't think the FSSTND supports libexec yet, so the directory
> should be removed.
This dir is standard by make install in gnu packages and didn't see
any harm so will not d
> (b) that the non-usual-maintainer releases should use a particular
> revision format: eg, hello-1.3-8 would become hello-1.3-8.1.
Seems very right to me. But I would like to add the following to it.
When mainstream is updated, hello-1.3 -> hello-1.4
Non-usual-maintainer updates, hello-1.
> As zoo comes from DOS I'm not sure if it would be a good idea to
> support long filenames.
If this is a valid argument for you you might restrict to 8.3 .
E
> > > Non-usual-maintainer updates, hello-1.3-8 -> hello-1.4-0.1
> > > Usual-maintainer updates, hello-1.3-8 -> hello-1.4-1
> > >
> > > Usual-maintainer should never use -0 for revisions.
> > > And if we agree on this, it should be mandated in the manual.
> >
> > I think this seems reasonable. I
Hi all,
I got a request from Jim Meyering (gnu maintainer shellutils, textutils,
fileutils etc.) whether or not he could get the bug-reports filed against
his packages.
I asked Ian J. about this but he couldn't come up with something more than
adding the mainstream maintainer in the maintainer fi
> Michael> I'd like to name the modules source file modules_2.0.0-8.tar.gz,
> Michael> the binary modules_2.0.0-8_i386.deb and the directory in which the
> Michael> source is stored IMO should be modules_2.0.0.
> As the saying goes: You can't have the pie and eat it.
> There are conflicting
> All packages in the Debian distribution proper must be freely useable,
> modifiable and redistributable in both source and binary form. It must
> be possible for anyone to distribute and use modified source code and
> their own own compiled binaries, at least when they do so a
> I'd prefer a non-hierarchical reorganization personally. While none of
> the ten thousand scripts that run on master should break, I'm sure they
> all will.
I prefer a non-hierarchical reorganization as well but I suggest that the
section directories are listed in one file per Distribution and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Date: 23 Aug 96 16:34 UT
Format: 1.6
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: High
Maintainer: Erick Branderhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Source: mfbasfnt
Version: 1.0-6
Binary: mfbasfnt
Architecture: all source
Description:
mfbasfnt: TeX's default fonts and a few others.
> Package: mfbasfnt
> Version: 1.0-5
I uploaded 1.0-6 a while ago and it should be fixed it that one.
> >Remove them.
>
> Move them to project/obsolete or some such.
Better would be to restructure the archive somehow and name things
correctly. I 'm still think something like this would be better:
stable/ /admin
/base
/comm
...
stable-extra/ /contr
> > Package: mfbasfnt
> > Version: 1.0-5
>
> I uploaded 1.0-6 a while ago and it should be fixed it that one.
Sorry I noticed that it was rejected because of a bad checksum.
Currently uploading 1.0-7.
Erick
15 matches
Mail list logo
