> [non-debian corel wp.deb example]
As pointed out, *corel* is providing the deb to others; it isn't part
of debian; they can just ignore the policy point.
However, it also occurs to me that this could be a clever little use
of the reverse-suggests feature that inspired this subthread: the free
p
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 31946 normal
Bug#31946: [PROPOSED] Adding dpkg-architecture to Packaging Manual
Severity set to `normal'.
> retitle 31946 [AMENDMENT 17/01/1999] Adding dpkg-architecture to Packaging
> Manual
Bug#31946: [PROPOSED] Adding dpkg-architecture to
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 30897 debiandoc-sgml
Bug#30897: debiandoc-sgml: debiandoc2xxx does not work
Bug reassigned from package `debian-policy' to `debiandoc-sgml'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Ian Jackson
(administra
reassign 30897 debiandoc-sgml
thanks
> Why has this bug been reassigned? When I got this bug report, I
> filed a separate bug report (#31033) to handle version.ent part.
> I very much would like to keep #30897 assigned to debiandoc-sgml,
> since the first part of this latter bug report is aimed
On Mon, 18 Jan 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Now Corel would want to follow the Debian Policy out of respect for Debian,
> naturally, but also because if they do they know that their non-free
> package will remain functional even if a new version of Debian is released.
>
> At this point they
I wrote:
>> Requiring this formally will make it impossible for many commercials to
>> contribute (since you cannot reasonably be required to mention the
>> competition).
Mark W. Eichin replied:
> Umm, I don't see how that follows, actually. Granted, we're trying to
> avoid that the *other* dir
6 matches
Mail list logo
