On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 12:47:59PM -0700, karlheg wrote:
>
> Do all of us have an @debian.org mailing address that is functional?
> I think EVERY developer who has upload writes ought to have that.
> Policy ought to dictate it; even if it's a forward (.qmail) drop.
there people who do not... un
Hi,
>>"Marco" == Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marco> Did you look at the FHS 2.1 draft?
I am aware of it, yes.
Marco> Some of the new things in FHS 2.0 like /var/state have been
Marco> removed from the standard and there is no point putting them
Marco> in the policy.
Hi,
Please retitle this bug into an [ACCEPTED] state in the BTS,
(changing the priority as well, like the other reports), in order to
get it included.
manoj
The stages in a proposals life
a) Pre discussion period, an idea is
floated, and kicked around and wishlist bu
Do all of us have an @debian.org mailing address that is functional?
I think EVERY developer who has upload writes ought to have that.
Policy ought to dictate it; even if it's a forward (.qmail) drop.
We ought ALL be subscribed to the announce list also.
I'd like to see the policy summary g
Hi,
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
>> Did Debian adopt FHS 2.0 at any point? If it hasn't, then /var/state
>> shouldn't be showing up anywhere. If Debian policy is now "FHS
>> instead of FSSTND", then please nag me to release FHS 2.1 officially.
The new verion Debian pol
Hi,
>>"Edward" == Edward Betts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Edward> How about /usr/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist.text.gz?
Done.
Edward> The locations of debian-policy and the packaging manual do
Edward> not meet the FHS, they should be changed to /usr/share/doc/
Edward> not /u
On Jun 30, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> capitalization of The X Window System in section heading. Any other
> flaws? Shall I renumber it to 3.0.0.0 and send it along?
Did you look at the FHS 2.1 draft? Some of the new things in FHS 2.0
like /var/state have been removed from the s
On 29 Jun 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> At long last, I have created a new policy version, the one
> that is destined to be version 3.0.0.0. As promised, I am not
> uploading this package, but presenting it here in order that people
> have a first look at it and make su
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> At long last, I have created a new policy version, the one
> that is destined to be version 3.0.0.0. As promised, I am not
> uploading this package, but presenting it here in order that people
> have a first look at it and make sure I have
Let me reply once more to this email, as either I don't
understand what is meant with `collapsing trees', or a lot
of other people don't.
Fearing about stuff originally placed in Apps/Vieuwers and Apps/Sound
suddenly being placed in Apps/MultiMedia, Steve wrote:
> I still don't think that I like
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999 21:55:49 -0600 (MDT), you wrote:
>Personally I think /var/state is a much more accurate name,
I have to agree on that matter. I'd expect executeable code in
/var/lib. But heck, some standards have to exist.
Greetings
Marc
--
-- !! No court
On debian-policy, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Wichert> Manoj, what happened to the utmp-group proposal? I don't see it
> Wichert> mentioned in the changelog..
>
> Actually, going in to add this t the
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> Did Debian adopt FHS 2.0 at any point? If it hasn't, then /var/state
> shouldn't be showing up anywhere. If Debian policy is now "FHS
> instead of FSSTND", then please nag me to release FHS 2.1 officially.
We made a statement of our intent to move t
Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So using /var/state is actually discouraged?
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Since it is not mentioned in the current FHS 2.1 draft
> (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/fhs-2.1-pre-02.tar.gz), and the description
> of /var/lib seems to encompass
Hi,
>>"Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Wichert> Manoj, what happened to the utmp-group proposal? I don't see
Wichert> it mentioned in the changelog..
I'll get to it in the next try, 2.5.1.91. In the meanwhile,
does everything else look OK?
manoj
--
Hi,
>>"Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Wichert> Manoj, what happened to the utmp-group proposal? I don't see it
Wichert> mentioned in the changelog..
Actually, going in to add this t the document, I notice thast
the amendment was already in, the bug was that I
16 matches
Mail list logo
