Re: Namespace pollution

"Oliver Elphick" wrote: >Let me restate this in English, to be sure that I understand it: > >"No package shall create without approval any command name or manpage less >than four characters long. Commands must consist only of lower-case letters, >digits or the symbols within these quotes:

Re: Namespace pollution

Ian Jackson wrote: >I propose the following policy: > >No package shall create without approval any command name (or >corresponding manpage): > >1. not matching the regexp ^[a-z0-9].. >2. matching ^... if it creates more than two such >3. matching [^-+._,a-z0-9], or Let me restate

Re: `Every package must have exactly one maintainer'

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > This is IMHO a trite argument ... [...] > What *did* you mean here? s/a trite argument/incorrect/. -- James

Re: making room

> On Tue, Mar 03, 1998 at 05:15:18PM -0800, Jim wrote: > > >Is there a way to check how much space a package is using? I looked > > >for an option for the "dpkg -l", so that the size of each package > > >would be shown, but found nothing. `dpkg -s foo | grep Installed-Size' ? Guy

Re: glibc_2.0.7pre1-3 uploaded to master

On Wed, 4 Mar 1998, Joel Klecker wrote: > At 12:34 -0500 1998-03-03, Dale Scheetz wrote: > >I understood this when I did it, and expected to identify the released > >version as 2.0.7rel for this very reason. > > I consider that *much* uglier than an epoch. But if you want to avoid using an epoch

Re: Namespace pollution

"a single common dictionary word" is vague and too restrictive. I also don't think it defines the collision space well. I think you can do better at defining this. Thanks Bruce

Re: `Every package must have exactly one maintainer'

Hi, >>"James" == James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: James> This is IMHO a trite argument ... Umm, trite? yes. Banal? maybe. Correct? I hope so. I am sorry I could not jazz up my arguments to meet your standards of entertainement ;-) What *did* you mean here? Surely you are

Re: glibc_2.0.7pre1-3 uploaded to master

At 12:34 -0500 1998-03-03, Dale Scheetz wrote: >I understood this when I did it, and expected to identify the released >version as 2.0.7rel for this very reason. I consider that *much* uglier than an epoch. -- Joel "Espy" KleckerDebian GNU/Linux Developer