Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here's what's been happening on debian-policy this week.
> Please let me know if you think any proposals have a consensus.
I think this one does:
> Add VISUAL when checking for user's editor (#41121)
> * Old.
> * Proposed by Steve Greenland; seconded
Here's what's been happening on debian-policy this week.
Please let me know if you think any proposals have a consensus.
Note: for details of the policy process, see
http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/policy/ch3.html. Also, this summary is
available on the web at http://kitenet.net/~joey/policy-week
Do we follow the informal procedure for proposals of new virtual packages?
Or are they generally just added with little fanfare?
I'm not sure if I should include them in my policy summary.
--
see shy jo
On Fri, Sep 17, 1999 at 02:22:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> Packages that are `too buggy to support' or `fail to meet policy
> requirements in a serious way' should either be fixed (ideally), or not
> included in Debian at all.
I second this proposal.
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian g
Anthony Towns wrote:
> ] 2.1.3. The contrib section
> ] --
> ]
> ] Every package in "contrib" must comply with the DFSG.
> ]
> ] Examples of packages which would be included in "contrib" are
> ] * free packages which require "contrib", "non-free", or "no
On Thu, Sep 16, 1999 at 08:03:21PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> The proliferation of ident daemons (midentd, oidentd, pidentd) in
> Debian necessitates the introduction of a virtual package that these
> packages can provide and conflict with (since you can only
> [reasonably] run one ident daemon
On Fri, Sep 17, 1999 at 11:14:44AM +0200, J.H.M. Dassen Ray" wrote:
> > > That is, that the only consideration about whether a package should be
> > > added to main, contrib or non-free be its licensing terms.
> > >
> > > Packages that are `too buggy to support' or `fail to meet policy
> > > requi
> The proliferation of ident daemons (midentd, oidentd, pidentd) in
> Debian necessitates the introduction of a virtual package that these
> packages can provide and conflict with (since you can only
> [reasonably] run one ident daemon at once). While "ident-daemon"
> seems more intuitive, the nam
On Fri, Sep 17, 1999 at 01:41:20 -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> On Sep 17, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > That is, that the only consideration about whether a package should be
> > added to main, contrib or non-free be its licensing terms.
> >
> > Packages that are `too buggy to support' or `fail to mee
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 45318 [PROPOSAL] Amend contrib definition
Bug#45318: [PROPOSAL] Ammend contrib definition
Changed Bug title.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
retitle 45318 [PROPOSAL] Amend contrib definition
thanks
[Retitle to correct typo]
On Sep 17, Anthony Towns wrote:
> That is, that the only consideration about whether a package should be
> added to main, contrib or non-free be its licensing terms.
>
> Packages that are `too buggy to support' or
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Nothing seemed to come of the April debian-policy thread about contrib
[0], but there seemed to be a very loose consensus that section 2.1.3
(definition of "contrib") should be changed.
So I'd like to propose that:
] 2.1.3. The contrib section
]
This seems reasonable. I already do this w/ pop3 (pop-server).
Consider this a second.
Shaleh
oidentd maintainer
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.0.1.1
Severity: wishlist
The proliferation of ident daemons (midentd, oidentd, pidentd) in
Debian necessitates the introduction of a virtual package that these
packages can provide and conflict with (since you can only
[reasonably] run one ident daemon at once).
14 matches
Mail list logo
