Christian Schwarz wrote:
> The last days, there was an `endless' discussion on debian-policy about
> the use of `du' control files. Though, the discussion has not yet ended, I
> think we have a consensus on the statement below. (If not, consider this
> as executive decision :)
I thought Ian made
On Tue, Feb 17 1998 19:11 +0100 Hartmut Koptein writes:
> My personal intention is to leave the x11 manuals where they are but
agreed.
> without the extension, because it's clear when they are under /usr/X11R6/
man/*/*
No, then you couldn't do an apropos anymore and immediately see, that's an
X11-
Adam Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> nasm is in the main distribution. Should it not be?
No. See #14859
--
James
On Tue, Feb 17, 1998 at 04:44:15PM +0100, Juan Cespedes wrote:
> Hi. I am the maintainer of `syslinux', and I wonder if it
> should be in main or in contrib...
>
> It's DFSG free, and it includes sources and binaries in the
> package, but if you want to build the binary from the sourc
Hello,
sorry for remembering (i'm following these list for only two days) but
what was the consensus for x11-manuals?
Should they go to /usr/X11R6/man/* or not and with the extension
(man1/xxx.1x.gz) ???
My personal intention is to leave the x11 manuals where they are but
without the extension,
Hi. I am the maintainer of `syslinux', and I wonder if it
should be in main or in contrib...
It's DFSG free, and it includes sources and binaries in the
package, but if you want to build the binary from the sources, you
need to use one not-DFSG package (nasm, see Bug#14859).
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Tue, 17 Feb 1998, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> On 16 Feb 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> I must admit I didn't notice this discussion until I saw the discussion
> about the bug reports on this topic. Could someone please explain in a few
> sentences the tech
[I CC: this to debian-devel and to the debhelper maintainer.]
The last days, there was an `endless' discussion on debian-policy about
the use of `du' control files. Though, the discussion has not yet ended, I
think we have a consensus on the statement below. (If not, consider this
as executive de
On 16 Feb 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[snip]
> In conclusion, I think we do need awk to be an essential
> package, and failing a mechanism to mark a virtual package essential,
> I think base-files should again depend on awk.
I fully agree. Unless there are any objections: Santiago, plea
Hi,
Looking back at my interaction on this thread, and looking
again at the changelog, I have come to the realization that I have
been making an ass of myself out here.
Santiago, please accept my apologies. You were not in the
wrong, and definitely did not deserve the flammage
10 matches
Mail list logo
