Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also, I think the debian constitution should be included in
> /usr/doc/debian-policy/. As near as I can tell, it's not included in any
> other package -- and it's at least as important as the proposal document.
It's in the developers-reference package.
On Sat, Sep 04, 1999 at 12:25:09PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> And I have yet to hear a better idea to solve the problem. I have said I
> would withdraw my proposal if I heard another reasonable idea. Simply not
> using dpkg-shlibdeps isn't IMO reasonable, neither is hacking a binary.
All righ
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> (a) documenting existing practice, and
Raul> (b) getting approval from relevant package developers, and
Raul> (c) getting the technical committee to approve (or disapprove) a
Raul> completed proposal, and
Raul> (d) getting the
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> Here's my (informal) reading of the constitution:
Raul> (1) the developers who maintain debian-policy have complete control
Raul> over what goes into the debian-policy package -- except where that would
Raul> conflict with what oth
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> If it's been accepted as debian policy (not technical policy, obviously)
Raul> then I think this document should be updated to reflect this status.
The proposal is not Debian policy. It is merely informal
guidelines that thi
Hello,
On Sun, Sep 05, 1999 at 03:07:48PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> In the wake of the 3.0.0.0 release of debian policy, I've been studying
> the policy process.
Which has worked almost flawlessy for some time before the big FHS bang.
Let's not try to fix things that are not broken. Most of th
In the wake of the 3.0.0.0 release of debian policy, I've been studying
the policy process. In particular, I've been looking at the debian
constitution, and the contents of the 3.0.1.1 debian-policy package.
Originally, I was going to make a formal proposal to update debian
policy. However acco
Short form:
When moving to FHS, we need to provide /usr/doc/ ->
/usr/share/doc/ symlink for backwards fsstnd compatability.
Long form:
See the debian-ctte mail archives.
Basically, however, Wichert asked the
committee for a migration strategy on August 5:
http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/de
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I would like to ask the people creating a proposal to also
> create a short description of the proposal, in a couple of sentences,
> that can then go into the upgrade-checklist (and make the weekly
> summary easier to generate).
I strongly second this. :-) Make
Hi,
It has been brought to my attention that it may be difficult
to grok thae changes between two versions of policy, and the list in
the upgrade checklist may not be detailed enough.
There are two ways of making the differences between policy
versions stand out -- a diff -uBb
Hi,
I'm currently discussing this with Joey and Manoj but cannot enforce
it myself due to time constraints.
For a maintainer it is very difficult to follow policy if there is
no proper way to find out what needs to be done for a package that
was compliant to policy version 2.5.0.0 and should now
Aaron Van Couwenberghe wrote:
> It seems to me that much effort is being reproduced on this particular
> subject. I agree completely with Wichert's spec -- as I recall it was
> adapted from an RFC he found somewhere, that had been through
> implementation. That kind of testing tends to solidify a s
Hi,
>>"Franklin" == Franklin Belew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Franklin> If you do have a really good reason that people can't
Franklin> rebuild their packages in the next 2 months, I'd like to
Franklin> hear it.
Is there ar eason that all packages can not be done within a
week? No. D
On Sat, Sep 04, 1999 at 09:39:56PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> At least 1 through 3 are already very well laid out via the debian
> configuration management specification. See
> http://www.debian.org/~wakkerma/config6/
>
> I have a nearly-done implementation of it, too:
> http://kitenet.net/programs
On Fri, Sep 03, 1999 at 11:04:29AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Here's what's been happening on debian-policy this week.
>
>Amendments
>
> Delay the /usr/doc transition till after potato (#42477)
> * Stalled for 2 weeks.
> * Pro
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 03, 1999 at 11:04:29AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> > * Proposes the addition of four new fields to debian/control to
> > specifiy different kinds of source dependancies (and conflicts,
> > suggests, etc).
>
> This amendment does *not* specify any
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 1) It must have many interfaces (GUI-base, Web-based, etc.).
Check. Plain old text, dialog, gtk, web, cany others someone cares to write,
all done.
> 2) The files where the configurations are stored must be easy to edit
>with a normal text editor.
Check. Can suppor
On Sat, Sep 04, 1999 at 07:13:52PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 04, 1999 at 08:10:07PM -0400, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote:
> > > And I have yet to hear a better idea to solve the problem. I have said I
> > > would withdraw my proposal if I heard another reasonable idea. Simply not
> > >
On Sat, Sep 04, 1999 at 08:10:07PM -0400, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote:
> > And I have yet to hear a better idea to solve the problem. I have said I
> > would withdraw my proposal if I heard another reasonable idea. Simply not
> > using dpkg-shlibdeps isn't IMO reasonable, neither is hacking a binary.
On Fri, Sep 03, 1999 at 11:04:29AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> * Proposes the addition of four new fields to debian/control to
> specifiy different kinds of source dependancies (and conflicts,
> suggests, etc).
This amendment does *not* specify any build-time "suggests" relationships.
--
On Sat, Sep 04, 1999 at 12:25:09PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> Other packages for similar reasons are built without dpkg-shlibdeps. I
> decided to fix this bug. And now my bugfix is being stonewalled for
> political reasons. If those who oppose policy ammendments aren't willing
> to stand beh
21 matches
Mail list logo
