Re: Comments on Debian packages and installation

1999-01-14 Thread Raul Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (about Enhances:) wrote: > I don't see the need for this. On the contrary it may create problems > as packages *move* from non-free to free (like KDE will, maybe, have > done) and that would create inconsistencies which we shouls avoid at > all costs! What inc

Re: Comments on Debian packages and installation

1999-01-14 Thread Craig Sanders
On Thu, Jan 14, 1999 at 10:56:49PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > 2. have policy strongly discourage links from main to non-free, but > > leave the final decision up to the package maintainer. > > IMHO this is the right solution since it is *so* easy to realise. I'd just > change the

Re: Comments on Debian packages and installation

1999-01-14 Thread Kristoffer . Rose
[Moved to debian-policy from debian-vote...] Craig Sanders proposes on the don't-suggest-non-free issue: > what do you think of this more moderate compromise position: > > 1. by default, don't display broken Suggests: but allow the user to > toggle this option. > > 2. have policy stro

Re: egcc maintainer

1999-01-14 Thread Oliver Elphick
Ian Jackson wrote: >Oliver Elphick writes ("Re: egcc maintainer "): >... >> >> However, one of the group should be nominated to have the prime >> responsibility for the package. This maintainer's address should be >> listed in the Group-leader control field. The group leader has the

Re: egcc maintainer

1999-01-14 Thread Ian Jackson
Oliver Elphick writes ("Re: egcc maintainer "): ... > > However, one of the group should be nominated to have the prime > responsibility for the package. This maintainer's address should be > listed in the Group-leader control field. The group leader has the > particular responsibility of ensurin

Re: Bug#30036: debian-policy could include emacs policy

1999-01-14 Thread Ian Jackson
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Bug#30036: debian-policy could include emacs policy"): > Hi, > >>"Adam" == Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Adam> I still don't really understand what is intended by moving > Adam> sub-policies into the policy manual. Is it intended that the Debian >

Re: Bug#29770: Policy contradicts itself about /etc/aliases

1999-01-14 Thread Ian Jackson
Santiago Vila writes ("Bug#29770: Policy contradicts itself about /etc/aliases"): ... > Policy says: > > "A package may not modify a configuration file of another package." Why don't we change this to: A package may not modify a configuration file of another package, except by arrangement (