Re: Is the dependency rule distribution-wise?

1999-02-18 Thread Santiago Vila
On Thu, 18 Feb 1999, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously Santiago Vila wrote: > > Thanks for answering. So: what's the right priority for a library in > > slink for which an important package in slink depends on? > > Probably the same as the important package. Well, apparently the ftp.debian.or

Re: Is the dependency rule distribution-wise?

1999-02-18 Thread Wichert Akkerman
Previously Santiago Vila wrote: > Thanks for answering. So: what's the right priority for a library in > slink for which an important package in slink depends on? Probably the same as the important package. Wihert. -- =

Re: Is the dependency rule distribution-wise?

1999-02-18 Thread Santiago Vila
On Thu, 18 Feb 1999, Richard Braakman wrote: > Wichert Akkerman wrote: > > Previously Santiago Vila wrote: > > > Is this to be considered "distribution-wise"? > > > i.e. Is this to be applied to hamm, slink, potato, in an independent way? > > > > I think so, because packages that may be required

Re: Is the dependency rule distribution-wise?

1999-02-18 Thread Santiago Vila
On Thu, 18 Feb 1999, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously Santiago Vila wrote: > > Is this to be considered "distribution-wise"? > > i.e. Is this to be applied to hamm, slink, potato, in an independent way? > > I think so, because packages that may be required in release N could > be obsolete in

pending normal debian bugs for Debian Policy List

1999-02-18 Thread Nag
Maintainer: Debian Policy List Severity: normal Status: pending This mail is being sent to you because the indicated bug reports have been marked as overdue (i.e. has been open longer than 9 months). Overdue reminders are repeated monthly. #8221 debian-policy ispell suggests non-ex

Re: smarter way to differ architectures needed?

1999-02-18 Thread Guy Maor
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Can you estimate the time you need to prepare this? Can I start to work out > the details for a policy proposal? First estimate how many packages are involved. If it's only a handful, it's not worth it (yet). Guy

Re: Is the dependency rule distribution-wise?

1999-02-18 Thread Richard Braakman
Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously Santiago Vila wrote: > > Is this to be considered "distribution-wise"? > > i.e. Is this to be applied to hamm, slink, potato, in an independent way? > > I think so, because packages that may be required in release N could > be obsolete in release N+1 and deserv

Re: Is the dependency rule distribution-wise?

1999-02-18 Thread Wichert Akkerman
Previously Santiago Vila wrote: > Is this to be considered "distribution-wise"? > i.e. Is this to be applied to hamm, slink, potato, in an independent way? I think so, because packages that may be required in release N could be obsolete in release N+1 and deserve a lower priority there. Wichert (