On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > Perhaps we need to add a small layer (perhaps the ctte itself) which
> > sanctions (sprinkles it with holy penguin-pee as Linus would say)
> > updates to the policy as decided by debian-policy. (perhaps sanctions
> > isn't the best word here, I hope
On Wed, Sep 08, 1999 at 12:34:27AM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> I think what Raul wants mostly is some way to incorporate the way
> debian-policy works currently with the structure as layed out in the
> constitution. As his position as chairman of the ctte that is not an
> unlogical desire.
Ba
On Wed, Sep 08, 1999 at 12:34:27AM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
> Perhaps we need to add a small layer (perhaps the ctte itself) which
> sanctions (sprinkles it with holy penguin-pee as Linus would say)
> updates to the policy as decided by debian-policy. (perhaps sanctions
> isn't the best wo
Previously Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> If you feel easier if the work of the policy group is "official
> sanctionized", I suggest that the Debian project leader makes the "Debian
> Policy Group" a delegate whose purpose is to edit and maintain the Debian
> policy manual. Then no change in the constit
Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> That is not how it worked, Some people, the emacsen
> developers, went out and created a sub policy document on their own,
> and worked out the kinks. Once the process stabilized, a proposal was
> made to adopt that as a policy document (not all the e
Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I voted on the same day as the others, but only Raul seems to
> have seen it ;-(
I saw it and corrected myself iirc.. you're not forgotten :)
Wichert.
--
==
This combination
Request: next time could you please quote the decided strategy instead
of only giving us an URL? This is somewhat inconvenient for people who
don't have a permanent net-connection.
Wichert.
--
==
This combination of byt
On Tue, Sep 07, 1999 at 05:38:03PM +0200, Roman Hodek wrote:
> You forgot the case of recompilations: If default is with -g + strip
> (as policy currently recommends), a lot of time is wasted on the
> auto-builder machines.
I think something like the following would work for auto-builder machines:
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 07, 1999 at 01:11:33PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > If the binaries can be debugged in the build directories, then there's
> > little reason not to strip them.
> That's an assumption that may or not may be met. We should not base
> our
On Tue, Sep 07, 1999 at 01:11:33PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
>
> I think that you have far too little trust in the common sense of
> developers. I think that if policy merely suggests it, most
> developers will follow the suggestion if it's at all reasonable to do
> so.
I think we should not be
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 07, 1999 at 08:24:06AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > If you want users to be able
> > to rebuild your package with debugging information easily, the suggested
> > way is to use the ``DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS'' environment variable.
> This is wa
On Tue, Sep 07, 1999 at 08:24:06AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> Ok, this is my last attempt for a crowd pleaser.
I hope not.
> This new an improved
> proposal should satisfy any and all complaints (as few as they were). This
> new proposal has several added features.
Unfortunately, I dislike t
> Let's assume that you care to keep executables with debugging
> symbols around. In that case, the old recommendation would
> have you build the package once. The new recommendation
> would have you compile twice. Time saved?
>
> Let's assume that you don't care to keep executables with
> deb
On Tue, Sep 07, 1999 at 10:59:08AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 07, 1999 at 08:24:06AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > Ok, this is my last attempt for a crowd pleaser. This new an improved
> > proposal should satisfy any and all complaints (as few as they were).
> > This new proposal has s
On Tue, Sep 07, 1999 at 04:02:30PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> You asked ``How should we change -policy to conform to the constitution?''
> We said ``We shouldn't.'' and gave reasons. How do you want this to be
> more specific?
That's not really what I asked, and that's not how I interpreted the
On Tue, Sep 07, 1999 at 08:24:06AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> Ok, this is my last attempt for a crowd pleaser. This new an improved
> proposal should satisfy any and all complaints (as few as they were).
> This new proposal has several added features.
I still think this makes the whole recommenda
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 43787 [AMENDED 07/09/1999] policy on -g, a proposal
Bug#43787: [AMENDMENT 05/09/1999] Compiling with debugging symbols
Changed bug title.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Ian Jackson
(administrator,
retitle 43787 [AMENDED 07/09/1999] policy on -g, a proposal
thanks
Ok, this is my last attempt for a crowd pleaser. This new an improved
proposal should satisfy any and all complaints (as few as they were). This
new proposal has several added features.
1) Raul was correct in that policy does nto
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 06, 1999 at 01:36:02AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> It looks like one of the most problematic aspects of my way of thinking
> is the idea that the opinions of developers should be solicited when
> policy would impact their packages.
This is at least impractical. Noone will have the
On Tue, Sep 07, 1999 at 12:05:17PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On 6 Sep 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Next stage: : /usr/doc is illegal, and we start filing bugs against
> >packages still using /usr/doc. Symlinks are still
> >required.
> This is exactly what I am tryi
Hi,
On 6 Sep 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> [...]
> Next stage: : /usr/doc is illegal, and we start filing bugs against
>packages still using /usr/doc. Symlinks are still
>required.
> [...]
This is exactly what I am trying to avoid.
The purpose of requiring symlinks is
On Mon, Sep 06, 1999 at 10:50:59AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 06, 1999 at 02:24:36AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Why are you coming in to this forum, and fixing things that do
> > not seem to be broken?
> I'm trying to understand some conflicts between various things I'
On Mon, Sep 06, 1999 at 10:27:28PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I'm perfectly willing to have the existing proposal go through. In
> > fact, the additional abstraction may be a good thing, for packages
> > which aren't written in C, and don't use -g for debugging.
> Then again it's at least as ea
On Mon, Sep 06, 1999 at 06:47:27PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> That wasn't actually a real objection, more of a comment. I tossed out
> another idea, but admitted that it had flaws as well as advantages.
My apologies -- the =debug proposal seemed to me to be overly complex
(and rather surprising,
On Mon, Sep 06, 1999 at 04:08:36PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> Ok, this is taking up too much of my time. This was a straight forward
> proposal, that saw no justified technical objections. If I have to argue
> till I'm out of breath on the whim of anyone who sends an objection, then
> this proposa
Ok, first point: I have been accused of objecting to this proposal.
I did no such thing. I offered some comments. That was all.
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What matters most, is that there was a consenus, the proposal has
> already been forwarded to debian-policy. Bringing this u
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Sep 05, 1999 at 08:10:05PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > Since this obviously has a consensus, I am making it amended. Here are the
> > final changes.
> Actually, on Sept 1, Chris Waters raised an objection about
> the use of the =debug abstractio
reassign 44079 libapache-mod-jserv
thanks
On Mon, 6 Sep 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
> Package: dhelp
> Version: 0.3.13
>
> Adam Heath wrote:
> > Setting up libapache-mod-jserv (1.0-2) ...
> > ln: /usr/doc//libapache-mod-jserv: cannot overwrite directory
> > dpkg: error processing libapache-mod-jser
28 matches
Mail list logo
