[no subject]

[laspsystem.com]

v 


Good morning 
sir

With this letter, the L.A.S.P. System will inform you then we that we will be present to the Equipe' 
Hotels fair, from the 28 settmbre to 3 October at Parigi France 
in the stand N140 padiglione 4 corsia C.

We expose the new system M.A.N.T.T.®.

System of telescopic coverages isolated with snow melting system 
incorporated.


We 
manufacture and install covers for:

1.Hotel.
2.Restaurant.
3.Terraces.
4.swimming pool.

Your visit 
will be a lot appreciate.

Special jobs 
upon request


In hoping to 
add you between our customers we augur them good job.




Distinti 
saluti
L.A.S.P. System 
Italia

visit ours 
internet site: http://www.laspsystem.com
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
telephone: 
0039-348-2631521 

Re: Bug#206928: LSB vs. Policy

[Julian Gilbey]

On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:09:14PM +0200, Martin Godisch wrote:
> > > > See subject. The init script should just be quiet, as other init
> > > > scripts do. Instead, it says "...program not found".
> > > 
> > > This is in compliance with the Linux Standard Base:
> > > 
> > >   In case of an error, while processing any init script action except
> > >   for "status", the init script must print an error message and return
> > >   one of the following non-zero exit status codes. 
> > > 
> > >   5 - program is not installed
> > > 
> > > http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/refspecs/LSB_1.3.0/gLSB/gLSB/iniscrptact.html
> > 
> > I do not care much about LSB when it specifies bull^h^h^h^h weird things -
> > and in this case, it clashes with our Policy (?9.3.2).


I thought that the LSB only applies to LSB packages and Debian Policy
applies to Debian packages.  In this case, we have this "graceful
exit" clause so that when a package is removed but not purged, the
script exits silently.  I don't know whether LSB packages have such a
concept (removal vs. purge).


   Julian

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Julian Gilbey, website: http://www.polya.uklinux.net/
   Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see: http://people.debian.org/~jdg/
 Visit http://www.thehungersite.com/ to help feed the hungry

Bug#207132: debian-policy is missing gcc transition plans

[Goswin Brederlow]

Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.6.1.0
Severity: normal

Hi,

again someone asks for what to do about gcc 2.95->3.2 transition and
the right place would be to point to the debian-policy package just as
with the libc6 transition.

Please include
  http://people.debian.org/~rmurray/c++transition.html
as soon as possible.

MfG
Goswin

Ps: you might want to consider retiring the libc6 transition document.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux dual 2.4.21-ac4 #1 SMP Sat Jul 5 17:53:13 CEST 2003 i686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=de_DE

-- no debconf information

Bug#207132: debian-policy is missing gcc transition plans

[Josip Rodin]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 10:41:46AM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.6.1.0
> Severity: normal
> 
> again someone asks for what to do about gcc 2.95->3.2 transition and
> the right place would be to point to the debian-policy package just as
> with the libc6 transition.
> 
> Please include
>   http://people.debian.org/~rmurray/c++transition.html
> as soon as possible.
> 
> Ps: you might want to consider retiring the libc6 transition document.

I'd rather if we dropped all such transitional issues from the Policy
manual. They're just bother and don't really have to be here to be mandated
by the project (examples abound -- libc6-migration, fhs migration, C++ 3
transition...). The technical committee can make a statement and be done
with it.

-- 
 2. That which causes joy or happiness.

Processed: Proposals should be severity wishlist

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> severity 207132 wishlist
Bug#207132: debian-policy is missing gcc transition plans
Severity set to `wishlist'.

> --
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

Bug#207132: debian-policy is missing gcc transition plans

[Anthony Towns]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 12:26:16PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> >   http://people.debian.org/~rmurray/c++transition.html
> > Ps: you might want to consider retiring the libc6 transition document.
> I'd rather if we dropped all such transitional issues from the Policy
> manual. They're just bother and don't really have to be here to be mandated
> by the project (examples abound -- libc6-migration, fhs migration, C++ 3
> transition...). The technical committee can make a statement and be done
> with it.

I'd rather we stopped looking at policy as "mandating things". There
are three things policy's trying to do at the moment:

1) specify technical standards, like version formats and package
   names

2) specify packaging and coding best practices

3) specify release requirements

All these things are necessary if we want to maintain Debian as a
highly integrated system -- people don't come to the project with the
same expectations and experience, and we don't want to inflict the same
mistakes on our users in perpetuity as new developers come along.

http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_rc_policy.txt is a good start at
separating out (3), and I'm happy for the release team to continue
maintaining that, even though it obviously is a little redundant wrt
policy.

(1) is easy to separate out -- there's only a couple of sections that
specify APIs and formats rather than implications, mostly from the old
packaging manual.

That leaves (2) though, which really includes things like transition
documents, and subproject policies, and most of the current debian-policy
document.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

   ``Is this some kind of psych test?
  Am I getting paid for this?''


pgp8ZZlt10wZC.pgp
Description: PGP signature