Hi,
I must confess that even I thought the the policy statement
meant that one should be able to install all optional packages
simultaneously.
Though this is a laudable goal, and indeed, was once
achievable, but with all the packages that we have now (pushing on to
3000), I d
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> This is not quite the case. FHS 2.0, like previous versions, aims for
> somewhere between best practice and the common (Linux) practice.
> Mostly Linux, actually, because Linux generally has a much cleaner
> filesystem hierarchy layout.
This being the
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Santiago Vila wrote:
> > * smail is still optional, but since exim is now the standard MTA, smail
> > should be probably downgraded to "extra".
> > * ssmtp conflicts with mail-transport-agent, which exim provides.
> > ssmtp should be probably downgrad
On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 11:41:39PM +, Jules Bean wrote:
>
> > > 3) Licenses are generally not free
> > > This is more or less a fact, actually. The GPL does not give the
> > > permission to modify, notwithstanding the fact that some other licenses
> > > are very clearly derived works.
> >
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, David Rocher wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As I have translated, I would some information to keep the spirit of
> the Debian Policly Manual.
>
> version 2.5.0.0, section 5.5, paragraph 7:
>
> The convention of writing forward to address in
> the mailbox itself is not supported. ...
>
Hi,
As I have translated, I would some information to keep the spirit of
the Debian Policly Manual.
version 2.5.0.0, section 5.5, paragraph 7:
The convention of writing forward to address in
the mailbox itself is not supported. ...
is the ... a stylistic notation or the mailbox really conta
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Typo. My spelling is awful.
On 27-Jan-99 Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> Btw, did you really mean to mention the string instrument, as a joke
> perhaps? Or is it a typo?
>
=
* http://ben
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Richard Braakman wrote:
> reassign 29874 debian-policy
> thanks
>
> Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> > Policy says:
> >
> > optional[...] This is all the software that you might reasonably
> > want to install if you didn't know what it was or don't have
> > specialised
*- Alexander N. Benner wrote about "Re: Bug#32448: debian-policy:
policy(section 3.3.4) still suggests /etc/rc.boot instead of /etc/rcS.d"
> Hi
>
> Ship's Log, Lt. Brian Servis, Stardate 260199.1406:
>>
>> Section 3.3.4 of the policy manual still suggests the obsolete /etc/rc.boot
>> instead of
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 29874 debian-policy
Bug#29874: optional packages that should be extra
Bug reassigned from package `ftp.debian.org' to `debian-policy'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Ian Jackson
(administrator, D
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Darren Benham wrote:
>
> On 26-Jan-99 Jules Bean wrote:
> > It doesn't have to be. The GPL could say, for example, 'this license
> > applies to the software which is put under it, as well as this document
> > itself, when it is distributed with the software'.
> >
> > It doe
Darren Benham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the GPL is GPL'd, I could take it, change it to, say, allow me to
> link with Qt (old) and viola, the whole KDE problem goes away...
No, it doesn't. I haven't checked the KDE sources, but most GPL'd
programs refer to the "GNU General Public License as
Hi
Ship's Log, Lt. Brian Servis, Stardate 260199.1406:
>
> Section 3.3.4 of the policy manual still suggests the obsolete /etc/rc.boot
> instead of the sysvinit standard of /etc/rcS.d as mentioned in
> /usr/doc/sysvinit, man rc.boot, and lintian.
on my system (hamm>slink>potato) /etc/rc.boot i
On 24-Jan-99, 18:24 (CST), "M.C. Vernon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Jules Bean wrote:
> > (What is the difference between debian-qa and debian-testing?)
>
> Testing is finding bugs. QA is fixing them. I'd be interested in this too.
While that is rather amusing description,
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 8221 debian-policy
Bug#8221: ispell suggests non-existant package
Bug reassigned from package `ispell' to `debian-policy'.
> quit
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Ian Jackson
(administrator, Debian bugs dat
On 26-Jan-99 Jules Bean wrote:
>> As for the draft, point 4 is covered. The current draft says:
>>
>> These guidelines are intended to be applied to software programs, that
>> is, machine-readable programs that instruct a computer how to perform
>> specific tasks, its source code,
On 26-Jan-99 Jules Bean wrote:
> It doesn't have to be. The GPL could say, for example, 'this license
> applies to the software which is put under it, as well as this document
> itself, when it is distributed with the software'.
>
> It doesn't, of course, say that. And it doesn't with 'good' re
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Darren Benham wrote:
> > It *is* possible to have these issues addressed in another document.
> > Maybe, one that describes the conditions for all files that get to
> > go into main. For software, it can point to the DFSG, for other
> > files, it can handle as is fitting (and w
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> merge 32448 32449
Bug#32448: debian-policy: policy(section 3.3.4) still suggests /etc/rc.boot
instead of /etc/rcS.d
Bug#32449: Section 3.3.4 (/etc/rc.boot) of policy needs updating
Merged 32448 32449.
>
End of message, stopping processing here.
Pleas
19 matches
Mail list logo
