Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [1 ]
> On Tue, Oct 13, 1998 at 11:11:42AM -0400, Daniel Martin wrote:
> > This covers the locations of icons.
> > --
> > Rationale
> >
> >There currently is no policy on where icons sh
On Tue, Oct 13, 1998 at 06:59:09PM -0400, Daniel Martin wrote:
> Michael Bramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >/usr/share/icons/. Such icons should have a name that is specific to
> > >that package. (so "icon.xpm" should only be used by the "icon"
> >
> > or better:
> >
On 13-Oct-98 Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> commitment to be developers. After all, this additional 20hours/weeks
> ought to be good for _some_ privileges ;-)
>
20 hours? Only 20 hours a week ;)
=
* http://benham.net/in
Hi,
>>"Michael" == Michael Bramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Michael> [1 ]
Michael> On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 11:41:22PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Seconds
>> developers may second the issue by emailing "seconded" to the
>> BTS. (Issue: what if the so called seconder is not a registere
I seconded with the PROPOSED...
On Tue, Oct 13, 1998 at 11:11:42AM -0400, Daniel Martin wrote:
> Requirements for packages which supply icons
>
>Packages that have some icon which identifies them (like the
>xemacs.xpm icon in xemacs20-support) should place that icon into
>/usr/share/i
On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 11:41:22PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Seconds
> developers may second the issue by emailing "seconded" to the
> BTS. (Issue: what if the so called seconder is not a registered
> Debian developer?)
the 'Seconds' process is not so imp
Your message dated Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:39:00 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#27433: [PROPOSAL]: ldconfig in postinst
has caused the attached bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
On Tue, Oct 13, 1998 at 11:11:42AM -0400, Daniel Martin wrote:
> This covers the locations of icons.
> --
> Rationale
>
>There currently is no policy on where icons should end up; (the only
>thing approaching policy is the doc
Adam P. Harris writes:
>[BTW, should I CC both the BTS *and* debian-policy?]
I believe the BTS forwards anything it receives to the package's
maintainer, debian-policy. I only got one copy from the list, though,
so I suspect the list server suppresses duplicates.
>Charles Briscoe-Smith <[EMAIL P
Package: debian-policy
Priority: wishlist
This is a proposal to debian-policy in accordance with the method
Manoj has set up using the Bug Tracking System for proposed policy
changes.
This covers the locations of icons.
--
Rationale
Hi,
>>"Darren" == Darren Benham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Darren> On 13-Oct-98 Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I am inclined to trust the current method of having a human
>> actually do rejects. The afore mentioned human may, of course, use
>> the services of lintian in deciding whether or not to
On 13-Oct-98 Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I am inclined to trust the current method of having a human
> actually do rejects. The afore mentioned human may, of course, use
> the services of lintian in deciding whether or not to reject the
> package; I would be inclined to support a policy v
Hi,
>>"Darren" == Darren Benham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Darren> [Manoj: I'm still a little lost on your BTS-proposal system.
Darren> I you want to walk me though it, I'll redo this, contact me
Darren> via private email or IRC]
This is simple enough that I am including this here.
Hi,
I tend to agree about getting anal about policy update
proposals, but I figured that was just me. If more people are in
favour of a slightly stricter adherence to the guidelines, just say
the word ;-)
The BTS sections are at the end; and really, that has been the
portion m
On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 09:52:11PM -0400, Adam P. Harris wrote:
> As for Bug #25911, I show the issue was officially raised as a
> proposal on 14 September, was seconded "carte blance" by Joseph Carter
> that day (not in BTS), was amended 14 September by Zed in response to
> Richard Braakman's comm
Darren Benham writes:
> I have just heard that, as strange as it sounds, it's not part of policy
> to reject a package from incoming that violates policy. THEREFORE, I
> propose that it be made part of policy to reject from incoming packages
> that contain policy errors and that the standard of me
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Should we consider also a minor amendment to the guidelines
> asking the proposer to post a reminder midway through the discussion
> period, and then again at the end of discussion (reminding the
> maintainers)? Sometimes discussion dies down
Darren Benham wrote:
> I have just heard that, as strange as it sounds, it's not part of policy to
> reject a package from incoming that violates policy. THEREFORE, I propose
> that
> it be made part of policy to reject from incoming packages that contain policy
> errors and that the standard of
[Manoj: I'm still a little lost on your BTS-proposal system. I you want to
walk me though it, I'll redo this, contact me via private email or IRC]
I have just heard that, as strange as it sounds, it's not part of policy to
reject a package from incoming that violates policy. THEREFORE, I propos
19 matches
Mail list logo
