(I've added debian-policy, because I'd like others to comment on this
issue -- basically introducing arbitrary differences from the upstream
version.)
On 29-Nov-1997 12:52:45, Santiago Vila Doncel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sometime, Steve Greenland closed this bug with the comment:
> > On 25-N
Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I still think that it's not our job to "judge" which packages are fine and
> which are not. What we can probably do, is to set up a web page which
> explains packages from third parties and describes their problems, but
> "hardcoded" a list into dpkg
On Sat, 29 Nov 1997, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> I am rather surprised at this statement. There was a discussion last fall
> on the issue and it was settled that debstd's behavior was satisfying the
> policy. Is there any newfound reason for compressing small changelogs?
I don't remember that disc
I am rather surprised at this statement. There was a discussion last fall
on the issue and it was settled that debstd's behavior was satisfying the
policy. Is there any newfound reason for compressing small changelogs?
The policy should clearly say what should be done (not wasting space) but
not s
[ Stupid Cc: removed, please don't put it back ]
Philippe Troin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1) The documentation for foo is there only once in the libfoog
> package and libfoo has a symlink in /usr/doc to libfoog.
/usr/doc/libpng0 isn't a symlink to libpng0g, it's an empty directory.
I
Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Reasons for not compressing changelogs <4K:
>
> - After compression the file is still occupying 1 allocation
> unit. There is no space saving.
I wonder if there lies the root of the disagreement. You see, the
default unit of allocation for ext2fs is 1024 bytes, not 40
Hi!
What's the intention of this (silly) discussion? Policy is very clear that
the changelog file has to be compressed no matter how large it is.
Someone provided a patch for debstd which makes it comply with this
policy.
So the only reason for discussion would be to change the policy. Is tha
On 28 Nov 1997, Rob Browning wrote:
> Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I think such a "blacklist" goes too far (cf. the current discussion on
> > debian-private about "censored" packages). I don't think we should
> > maintain such a list.
> >
> > However, we should probably im
You are right. I took the liberty of being inaccurate as Juan was.
He posted before stating the complete issue with no reponse.
Reasons for not compressing changelogs <4K:
- After compression the file is still occupying 1 allocation unit. There is no
space saving.
- I have 486 machines here wh
There are soo many discussions going on. Show us why this is important. Maybe
one or the
other attack against established concepts to get peoples brains thinking?
If nothing helps: Write something that will catch Bruce's attention.
Come up with another conspiracy theory f.e. and he will respond.
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> At the risk of starting another flamewar, providing a KDE
> package that installs in /opt is an obvious violation of debian
> policy, which I assume is why Andreas does his own. Although
> Andreas encourages us not to get the KDE people off-side,
> sometimes it wouldn't h
11 matches
Mail list logo
