Re: Working on debian developer's reference and "best packaging practices"
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Anthony> On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 05:19:09PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns <email@example.com> writes:
Anthony> The real question is whether maintainers are meant to build
Anthony> using the features of dpkg, or the ones listed in
>> *Sigh*. Let me see if I can dot the i's and cross the t's. A
>> package should be buildable using the bits mentioned in policy. Any
>> package may, however, choose to add any extra bits added by dpkg,
>> (perhaps buigld depending on a new dpjg version if the change is not
>> compatible with older versions).
Anthony> This, uh, doesn't make sense.
Anthony> "A package should be buildable using nothing more than
Anthony> [foo]. Unless it chooses not to be."
Anthony> ...seems to be what you just said.
Umm. I fail to see how else I can define sufficient, and
optional, new, added features. Policy defines the minimal,
The King and his advisor are overlooking the battle field: King: "How
goes the battle plan?" Advisor: "See those little black specks
running to the right?" K: "Yes." A: "Those are their guys. And all
those little red specks running to the left are our guys. Then when
they collide we wait till the dust clears." K: "And?" A: "If there
are more red specks left than black specks, we win." K: "But what
about the ^#!!$% battle plan?" A: "So far, it seems to be going
according to specks."
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org