On Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 11:20:36PM +0200, Topi Miettinen wrote:
> Shaleh writes:
> > Before you register bugs, how about updating the build apps to do this.
> > Then new packages are correct and only old ones get bug reports.
>
> Relax, I'm not going to submit any bug reports. If this becomes pol
Before you register bugs, how about updating the build apps to do this.
Then new packages are correct and only old ones get bug reports.
---
How can you see, when your mind is not open?
How can you think, when your eyes are closed?
- Jason Bonham Band,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Fri, 20 Mar 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Santiago Vila writes ("Re: need input: essential packages and pre-depends"):
> ...
> > For example, if diff is essential, it should Pre-Depends on libc6, because
> > otherwise maintainer scripts which use it would fail.
Herbert Xu wrote:
> Surely this kind of religious zeal should not be reflected in lintian.
I have no particular opinion about the use of csh for scripts, and I
hope to stay out of the actual policy discussion. But since I'm the
one who wrote the actual csh-considered-harmful check for linti
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Santiago Vila writes ("Re: Proposal how to handle mass bug reports"):
> ...
> > Mmm, well, what if I sent just one bug against ftp.debian.org saying
> > "these 100 packages should not have `optional' priority but `extra'"?
> >
> > I would say your proposed policy is incomplete
Dale: you're the libc maintainer - are you following this discussion ?
The fundamental problem here is that Manoj wants kernel-headers-* for
development of weirdo programs which require particular kernel headers
to compile.
I don't think this is something that many people will need - after
all, t
Hi,
>>"Anand" == Anand Kumria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Anand> On Thu, 19 Mar 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 19, 1998 at 06:02:54PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: I
>> think we should indeed have such a new priority level. I like the
>> label `preferred'.
Anand> Another possibility co
Santiago Vila writes ("Re: Proposal how to handle mass bug reports"):
...
> Mmm, requiring a lot of action for a lot of packages has not to be
> discussed also? This is also a problem, not only getting rid of the bug
> themselves, because people may disagree very easily.
By sending my bug report I
Santiago Vila writes ("Re: need input: essential packages and pre-depends"):
...
> For example, if diff is essential, it should Pre-Depends on libc6, because
> otherwise maintainer scripts which use it would fail. Right?
Yes. But if diff3 uses a different library, that wouldn't need a
Pre-Depends
On Thu, 19 Mar 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 1998 at 06:02:54PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I think we should indeed have such a new priority level. I like the
> > label `preferred'.
Another possibility could be `recommended'.
> > This should include the `best example' of ev
Hi,
>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian> Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: PW#5-16: Use of /usr/src"): ...
>> Umm, no. The kernel-* package maintainers use kernel-package, which
>> produces (and has produced, in the past) the packages
>> kernel-{headers,source,doc,image}-. There is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Fri, 20 Mar 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I'm sorry, what precise policy change is being proposed ?
>
> It is currently policy that Essential packages have to use Pre-Depends
> for things which they need to support the packaging system. They
> should use Depen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Fri, 20 Mar 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Santiago Vila writes ("Re: Proposal how to handle mass bug reports"):
> ...
> > Mmm, well, what if I sent just one bug against ftp.debian.org saying
> > "these 100 packages should not have `optional' priority but `extra'
Christian Schwarz writes ("Re: need input: essential packages and pre-depends"):
> On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> > > Recall, that there was a discussion on this topic between Feb 9 and Feb
> > > 18, with subject line "awk: essential
Christian Schwarz writes ("Re: Proposal how to handle mass bug reports"):
...
> You're proposal (at least, something very similar) is already policy. The
> `Debian Developer's Reference' reads:
[...]
Ah. My new phrasing is somewhat stronger, and covers any kind of bulk
mail (the current policy on
Santiago Vila writes ("Re: Proposal how to handle mass bug reports"):
...
> Mmm, well, what if I sent just one bug against ftp.debian.org saying
> "these 100 packages should not have `optional' priority but `extra'"?
>
> I would say your proposed policy is incomplete. I would add the following
> p
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: PW#5-16: Use of /usr/src"):
...
> Umm, no. The kernel-* package maintainers use kernel-package,
> which produces (and has produced, in the past) the packages
> kernel-{headers,source,doc,image}-. There is no interaction
> required between the two sets of maint
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> No objections here. However, I think we must agree on how to handle the bug
> reports; the situation is like this:
> - Non-maintainer releases should not close bug reports
> - We don't have a "Severity: fixed" yet.
There's really no problem for a lot of them, becuase the
> > > Noone may submit many bug reports or send mail to many maintainers
> > > without prior approval for the specific person in question to send
> > > mail under those specific circumstances.
> >
> > approval from whom?
>
> Several people already have "mass mailer" scripts (bcwhite, Christian,
> > Non maintainer releases do not close bugs. However, a non maintainer
> > release that *just* fixes a bug because a bad building environment
> > (buggy debstd, in this case) should probably be able to close such
> > bugs. What do others think about this?
>
> Just downgrade the severity of the
> 1) The bug server takes care of reminding maintainers that have packages
>with old unattended bugs. Everyone knows that there are old bugs open.
>There is no need to send reminders without additional information specific
>to the bug. Therefore, sending reminders to a bunch of old bu
On 19 Mar 1998, Rob Browning wrote:
> The changelog for egcc claims it's now the standard for Debian. Is
> that true? I'm asking because I need it here for other projects, and
> I want to know how that can/should interact with building my Debian
> packges.
>
> Is it OK to compile Debian package
On Thu, Mar 19, 1998 at 04:49:17PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I see more and more software being offered in .tar.bz2 format (e.g. kernel,
> egcs), which appears to be a lot more space efficient for source code.
>
> I'd like to request that our policy wrt sources be extended to accept
> .tar
(I had a hard time deciding if this was -devel or -policy material.)
The changelog for egcc claims it's now the standard for Debian. Is
that true? I'm asking because I need it here for other projects, and
I want to know how that can/should interact with building my Debian
packges.
Is it OK to
24 matches
Mail list logo
