On policy, Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Therefore, I propose that we permit the use of bzip2 to compress
> source package files (.orig.tar and .diff for most packages, .tar for
> native packages). I further propose that the use of bzip2 be
> mandatory for newly uploaded source files
On Thu, Jun 10, 1999 at 02:02:35PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 2.5.1.0
> Severity: normal
>
> A recent report on the debian-cd list indicates that space on the
> potato source CDs is very tight (around 10 MB of slack). We are
> virtually certain to exceed this
On Jun 10, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 10, 1999 at 02:02:35PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
>
> > I further propose that the use of bzip2 be mandatory for newly uploaded
> > source files
>
> Upstream doesn't always provide .tar.bz2 packages.
(zcat upstream.orig.tar.gz | bzip2 > upstr
On Thu, Jun 10, 1999 at 02:02:35PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> I further propose that the use of bzip2 be mandatory for newly uploaded
> source files
Upstream doesn't always provide .tar.bz2 packages.
Marcelo
Package: debian-policy
Version: 2.5.1.0
Severity: normal
A recent report on the debian-cd list indicates that space on the
potato source CDs is very tight (around 10 MB of slack). We are
virtually certain to exceed this space limitation (and thus enter the
realm of needing at least 3 source discs
Hiya :)
> Date:10 Jun 1999 13:05:03 +0200
> To: Jim Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc: debian-policy@lists.debian.org
> From:"Davide G. M. Salvetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: weekly policy summary
>
> What I do think should be policy is that main (which includes non-US
> f
On debian-policy, "Davide G. M. Salvetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Patent restriction does not imply freedom restriction: they are two
> very different matters. In other words, gimp-non-free is misnamed,
> and (software license permitting) it should go directly to
> non-US/main, which is main
Hi,
>>"DGMS" == Davide G M Salvetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DGMS> * MS => Manoj Srivastava
DGMS> It is controversial indeed, does this also mean we can't try and have
DGMS> it decided?
Proabably this is not the right forum for that. The policy
process is a light weight proces
Hi,
>>"DGMS" == Davide G M Salvetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DGMS> But I'm really only suggesting that this behavior should be avoided at
DGMS> all if possible, I don't aim to have it policy.
DGMS> What I do think should be policy is that main (which includes non-US
DGMS> free software) sh
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have come to realize that there may be a better method of tracking
> the progress of proposals in the BTS.
> a) Pre discussion period, an idea is
> floated, and kicked around and wishlist bug, titled [PROPOSAL]
> polished for a bit
>
On Thu, 10 Jun 1999, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Joey Hess wrote:
> > Would it make sense for any packages that use the new permissions scheme
> > make sure they have proper perms in the postinst?
>
> I think letting base-files fix the permissions and letting other
> packages Depend on a
* MS => Manoj Srivastava
MS> If only it were as simple as that. This issue has been brought up
MS> on the lists, and, IIRC, it was quite controversial.
It is controversial indeed, does this also mean we can't try and have
it decided?
DGMS> My vote is for free packages not being allowed to
* EB => Edward Betts
EB> Gimp lacks support for GIFs and TIFFs because of pantent problems.
[...]
EB> How would you suggest he rectifies this problem without mentioning
EB> non-free software? Just tell them not to use TIFF or GIF?
Patent restriction does not imply freedom restriction: they
* JL => Jim Lynch
JL> I'm afraid, that if it were made illegal to mention non-free
JL> things in the expository-but-non-functional parts of debian
JL> instalations, people might lose sight of important histories such
JL> as in the above exsamp;e.
You have a good point.
What I was trying to e
Previously Joey Hess wrote:
> Would it make sense for any packages that use the new permissions scheme
> make sure they have proper perms in the postinst?
I think letting base-files fix the permissions and letting other
packages Depend on a recent base-files version would be a better
solution. (or
As I wrote some days ago on debian-devel, I'm packaging "ding" a
Tcl/Tk program for translating words. The program is a flexible
frontend agrep/egrep which acts on some kind of translation
dictionary. A translation dictionary is a file with one word or phrase
per line with a separator between the t
Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> But /var/log/wtmp and /var/log/lastlog don't belong to a package - how
> do we make sure the permissions on those files get changed? Should
> base-files take care of that ?
Would it make sense for any packages that use the new permissions scheme
make sure they have
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>+The files /var/run/utmp, /var/log/wtmp and
>+/var/log/lastlog should be installed writeable by group
>+utmp. Programs who need to modify those files should be installed
>+install setgid u
Hi,
>>"DGMS" == Davide G M Salvetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DGMS> * MS => Manoj Srivastava
MS> There is a difference between unmet suggests and depends: in the
MS> former case, the packages install, and should work, in the latter
MS> case the packages are broken.
DGMS> Yes, I do know
Fixed a couple of grammatical errors and clarified the wording on the bit
about pathnames.
Attached is a new version of the diff, and a diff of the old version and
the new one so people see that I'm not pulling anything funny.
I made one change that wasn't in the scope of the original proposal.
20 matches
Mail list logo
