On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 at 02:29, Chris Lawrence wrote about "Re: Editor and...":
> That and the "local modification" business is a bit goofy; perhaps
> they should consider a "you modify it, you change the name" policy
> (i.e. you can't call a modified Pine "UW Pine" or "UW PC/Pine"). That
> would a
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>"Chris" == Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Chris> Note that the common element of both proposals is that
> Chris> someone who has non-free packages in her package list will
> Chris> see them, and someone who doesn't won't. This reall
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was referring to the sentence underlined
> by Roland, which means that you can't make a symlink to
> undocumented(7) unless there is a bug report.
The reason for that is that the undocumented(7) page says that a bug
rep
Hi,
[I should be breaking out my absestos suit now, I guess]
>>"Chris" == Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> Note that the common element of both proposals is that someone who has
Chris> non-free packages in her package list will see them, and someone who
Chris> d
On Tue, Jun 15, 1999 at 10:05:44AM +0300, Brock Rozen wrote:
> > pico is non-free, so I see no reason to hinge a decision on whether
> > something
> > in debian supports something thats non-free.
>
> To clear up any confusion, the Pine (as such, pico; I believe) license has
> changed and that mig
Hi,
O... OK :) So you don't want to not document things... whew :)
I apologise for the outburst. It might happen again tho, I'm something
of a loose cannon sometimes :)
Yes, I can explain, I think.
I believe the idea is this:
the symlink to undocumented* should exist,
if and only if
> Try this one-liner
(that places a manifest in each pkg dir off /usr/doc of all files in said pkg)
Hi Davide,
Hot :) Thanks :) That could help people... And THAT -will- help debian!
We could modify it so it would place a manifest only in dirs queried, and make
a command that queries, caches the
Hi Manoj,
> http://www.debian.org/Bugs/db/37/37338.html
>
> I am currently working on editing in the policy amendments,
> and I find this amendment quite confusing. Could the rpincipals
> involved in this clarify exactly where the .la files are supposed to
> go? Are they
On Tue, 15 Jun 1999, Jim Lynch wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Jun 1999, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> >
> > > | 6.1. Manual pages
> > > | -
> > > |
> > > | You must install manual pages in `nroff' source form, in appropriate
> > > | places under `/usr/man'. You should only use sections
* JL => Jim Lynch
JL> Still, I think that each package should maybe have a manifest
JL> installed as documentation, either as a file in
JL> /usr/doc/package/MANIFEST, in each man page, or howbout this:
JL> BOTH. This includes: files the package installed, and to a limited
JL> degree, files it'
On Tue, 15 Jun 1999, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > > | If no manual page is available for a particular program,
> > > > | utility or function and this is reported as a bug on
> > > > | debian-bugs, a symbolic link
> > > I think this is a stupid policy and should be changed.
> > Care to provide reas
>
> Date:Tue, 15 Jun 1999 11:54:58 +0200
> To: Roland Rosenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc: Martin Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Debian Policy List
> From:Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Bug#39463,#39482,#39493: timidity, cdrdao, cdtool has no manpage
>
On Tue, Jun 15, 1999 at 13:25:27 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> If lack of a manpage is a "problem", what do we gain by making a
> symlink to undocumented(7), if it still has to be kept as a "bug"?
Userfriendliness: it informs our users that the issue is known.
> On the other hand, if an upstream
On Tue, 15 Jun 1999, J.H.M. Dassen wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 1999 at 11:54:58 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > | If no manual page is available for a particular program, utility or
> > > | function and this is reported as a bug on debian-bugs, a symbolic
> > > link
> > >^^
Previously Chris Fearnley wrote:
> Lintian Maintainer:
> BTW, do we have software that checks the archive for compliance with this
> part of policy? Does lintian do it? A brief scan at that package suggests
> that this should be added to lintian's wish list.
http://master.debian.org/~wakkerm/rel
On Tue, Jun 15, 1999 at 11:54:58 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > | If no manual page is available for a particular program, utility or
> > | function and this is reported as a bug on debian-bugs, a symbolic link
> >
>
> I think th
On Mon, 14 Jun 1999, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> | 6.1. Manual pages
> | -
> |
> | You must install manual pages in `nroff' source form, in appropriate
> | places under `/usr/man'. You should only use sections 1 to 9 (see the
> | FSSTND for more details). You must _not_ i
On Jun 15, Brock Rozen wrote:
> To clear up any confusion, the Pine (as such, pico; I believe) license has
> changed and that might make it eligible to be taken out of "non-free".
A number of problems have been discussed on -legal relative to it;
most notably, that you can put it on a CD-ROM but n
On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 at 18:36, Jim Lynch wrote about "Re: Editor and...":
> Brock Rozen wrote:
> > I didn't see support for pico in this -- thus, I'm against this proposal
> > until sensible-editor has pico support. (If I'm mistaken,and it does have
> > pico support, then I will second this proposa
On 14 Jun 1999 at 12:24, Manoj Srivastava wrote about "Re: Editor and...":
> Yes, the guidelines adopted for policy changes do state that
> only proposals and seconds that count have to be developers. Non
> developers are welcome, and the input provided is listened to, but
> since polic
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 14-Jun-99 Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> 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 ou
On Tue, Jun 15, 1999 at 01:27:27PM +1000, Chris Leishman wrote:
> Well...the discussion there is regarding 'pristine' source, and md5sums of
> upstream releases (with regards to repackaging ustream source as .tar.bz2).
A month ago, maybe two, there was a huge debate about whether md5sums should
be
On Mon, Jun 14, 1999 at 03:53:58PM +0200, Petr Cech wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 12, 1999 at 06:43:55PM +1000 , Chris Leishman wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > Is this possible to achieve given the existing packaging system framework?
> > Is anyone interested in this idea, or interested in taking
Hi Brock :)
put this in your .bashrc and/or .bash_profile:
export EDITOR=pico
and see what happens.
Meanwhile, here's something for you to ignore if the above works:
First, the bad news :) If you're not a developer, you don't have a vote, and
you shouldn't be putting your posts in official ter
Brock Rozen wrote:
> I didn't see support for pico in this -- thus, I'm against this proposal
> until sensible-editor has pico support. (If I'm mistaken,and it does have
> pico support, then I will second this proposal).
pico is non-free, so I see no reason to hinge a decision on whether something
25 matches
Mail list logo
