Brock Rozen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I will vote AGAINST this proposal. It's certainly my right [...]
No, if you're not a member of the project, your input is welcome, if
it's sensible, but you don't get a vote, so it's *not* "certainly"
your right.
In this case, your input is not sensible
Francesco Tapparo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My complaint is that dselect offer to install the Suggested package, hinting
> to the user to install it: this strike again the Debian spirit.
We have already discussed this in great detail. Two proposals that
were put forth that both seem reasonab
At 11:45 +0200 1999-06-14, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
So every Package that uses gif would be depreciated, like gimp. It
works perfectly without gif, but with gif support a bit better and gif
support is non-free.
It's only "non-free" in the US.
--
Joel Klecker (aka Espy)Debian
Previously Brock Rozen wrote:
> I will second this.
Lets not.
May I suggest that anyone can submit a proposal, but only actual Debian
developers can second a proposal, signed with a PGP or GnuPG that is
in our keyring. (Brock, this has nothing to do with you, but with Debian
having control over w
On Mon, Jun 14, 1999 at 12:40:19PM -0700, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote:
>
> IMHO, any serious Linux user learns to use the emacs, falling back on
> vi. Pico is silly.
Yah and some of us want an editor, not an operating system. We tend to
use vim, joe, jed, or similar... =>
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> IMHO, any serious Linux user learns to use the emacs, falling back on
> vi. Pico is silly.
IMHO, you are silly. One of the appeals of using a UNIX clone over
alternate operating systems is being able to do things the way _you_
want to, not the way
On Mon, Jun 14, 1999 at 07:28:40PM +0200, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> I thought, that the policy is quite clear in that point, that's why I
> did not ask someone before doing this job.
You should have asked on -devel. It's too easy to make trivial mistakes.
> The policy is quite clear for me, but
IMHO, any serious Linux user learns to use the emacs, falling back on
vi. Pico is silly.
On 14-Jun-99, 01:51 (CDT), Brock Rozen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One works under Debian, the other doesn't. While pico isn't part of
> Debian, there is a package available and I still use it. While that is of
> no interest to you, it makes a whole lot of a difference to me -- and
> since sensib
On 14-Jun-99, 02:06 (CDT), Brock Rozen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jun 1999 at 12:22, Joseph Carter wrote about "Re: Editor and...":
> > #!/bin/bash
> > shopt -s execfail
> > exec ${VISUAL:-${EDITOR:-editor}} "$@"
>
> Yes, I saw this. But I didn't see, like the following two lines,
> s
On Tue, 15 Jun 1999, Martin Mitchell wrote:
I filed a lot of maintonly bug reports against packages, where some
man pages are missing, while no bug report about this exists but
symlinks to undocumented.7.gz are installed.
> > /usr/man/man1/wav2pat.1.gz tells me, that I should not report the
> > m
Hi,
>>"Brock" == Brock Rozen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brock> On Fri, 11 Jun 1999 at 14:57, Joey Hess wrote about "weekly policy
summary":
Brock> I will second this, simply because I like features and this one
certainly
Brock> can't hurt. I think it should be an option though (to save th
Hi,
>>"Brock" == Brock Rozen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brock> And while, you may be right (I'm not saying you are) that
Brock> developers should be the only ones seconding and objecting --
Yes, the guidelines adopted for policy changes do state that
only proposals and seconds that co
Hi,
>>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marcus> On Thu, Jun 10, 1999 at 11:13:23PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>
Marcus> That's not 100% sane. Any upstream author who cares should at
Marcus> least provide an additional md5sum for the uncompressed tar
Marcus> file.
On Mon, Jun 14, 1999 at 11:45:01AM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> "Davide G. M. Salvetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > * JL => Jim Lynch
> > software. This means, IMHO, that free packages should not reference
> > non-free packages in the Debian sense (i.e., suggests, recommends, and
>
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would rather not see bzip2 be mandatory, but I would like to see it be
> possible for things like the X sources and other things which truly
> benefit. This requires alterations to dpkg and I would suggest that
> before this can become policy you're g
Brock Rozen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 13 Jun 1999 at 14:19, Chris Waters wrote about "Re: Editor and...":
>
> One works under Debian, the other doesn't. While pico isn't part of
> Debian, there is a package available and I still use it. While that is of
> no interest to you, it makes a who
Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Ideally if the package is released upstream as a .gz we should use the
> > .gz. But when it's released as .gz and .bz2 as many things now are, we
> > should probably use them.
>
> And what if it's released upstream as a .tar or a .tar.Z?
In case of a
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But yeah, I'd be happy to compress the X source archives as aggressively as
> possible. bzip2 with the throttle wide open, or whatever. I wouldn't be
> worried about the hard hit taken by uncompressing it, since people without
> really manly machine
Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 2.5.1.0
> Severity: normal
SECONED.
> 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 tha
"Davide G. M. Salvetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * JL => Jim Lynch
> software. This means, IMHO, that free packages should not reference
> non-free packages in the Debian sense (i.e., suggests, recommends, and
> depends).
So every Package that uses gif would be depreciated, like gimp. I
On Mon, Jun 14, 1999 at 10:06:10AM +0300, Brock Rozen wrote:
> > Barring the argument that sensible-editor assumes sensible-user who would
> > never use such a braindead and bloated piece of software for any
> > practical purpose, your argument demonstrates that you need to be fwopped
>
> Fine. Bu
On Sun, 13 Jun 1999 at 12:22, Joseph Carter wrote about "Re: Editor and...":
> I'm about to be harsh on you, so I shall apologize in advance.
As long as we're not commenting on each other's anatomy parts, I think I
can deal with it. ;-)
> Barring the argument that sensible-editor assumes sensibl
On 13 Jun 1999 at 14:19, Chris Waters wrote about "Re: Editor and...":
> > > Editor and sensible-editor
> > > * Under discussion.
> > > * Proposed on 2 Jun 1999 by Goswin Brederlow.
> > > * Instead of having programs use $EDITOR and fall back to editor,
> > > just use sensible-editor.
>
24 matches
Mail list logo
