-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> I like 'Useful', personally.
>
> I don't feel strongly, though. I *definitely* like the idea.
>
> I would also like to see some QA standards for the higher priorities.
'useful' is nice, but it does carry a bit more weight than we wanted
(not to m
On Thu, 18 Mar 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Ideas I have had so far are:
> >Usual
> >Common
> >Better
> >Good
> >Useful
> >Widespread
> >Commended
>
> Of these `Commended' in the best, IMHO. Perhaps `Core' even if that may
> sound like more important than `Sta
[I've been away, so sorry for the late post]
Adrian Bridgett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've got a package with _loads_ of .html files, but I can't see if they
> should be compressed or not.
Guy Maor wrote:
> Practically every viewer and server can handle gzipped files. Where
> things bre
Ian proposes:
> It's clear that Optional is far too large. Although we nominally say
> that packages for which you need to have a special requirement before
> you want to install them should go in Extra, this rule hasn't been
> well enforced, and is in any case contentious.
I agree...in fact I'd
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 34652 Policy is not clear enough about nawk.
Bug#34652: [PROPOSAL] Policy is not clear about nawk.
Changed bug title.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Ian Jackson
(administrator, Debian bugs databas
retitle 34652 Policy is not clear enough about nawk.
thanks
On Tue, 16 Mar 1999, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Santiago Vila wrote:
> > The bug:
> > ===
> >
> > The /usr/doc/debian-policy/virtual-package-names-list.text.gz file says:
> >
> > awk Anything providing suitable /
On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Santiago Vila writes ("Re: FOUND IT!!! was Re: Problems with dselect..."):
> > A Pre-depend on an optional package is not a mistake as such (provided
> > the Pre-Depend itself is jutified enough, of course).
>
> Perhaps this policy should be changed. The
On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, Ian Jackson wrote:
> It's clear that Optional is far too large. Although we nominally say
> that packages for which you need to have a special requirement before
> you want to install them should go in Extra, this rule hasn't been
> well enforced, and is in any case contentio
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
9 matches
Mail list logo
