Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> So what should it say? Would an extra line: Copyright (c)1998,1999
>> Debian Policy List Members be appropriate?
Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> IANAL, but I believe that only a legally recognized entity (person,
> organization, whatever)
Hi,
On Wed, 20 Oct 1999, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 14, 1999 at 07:20:05PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > > /usr/doc/debian-policy/policy.html/index.html:
> > >
> > > Copyright (c)1996,1997,1998 Ian Jackson and Christian Schwarz.
> > >
> > > Yet the manual has been modified
Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So what should it say? Would an extra line:
> Copyright (c)1998,1999 Debian Policy List Members
> be appropriate?
IANAL, but I believe that only a legally recognized entity (person,
organization, whatever) can assert copyright.
When Manoj asked me to
Edward Betts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think we should standardize around /usr/include/X11/{bitmap,pixmap}.
> I thought that include was a place for storing C header files. Yes I
> have looked at an xpm before, but even so, it is still an odd
> On Thu, Oct 14, 1999 at 07:20:05PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > /usr/doc/debian-policy/policy.html/index.html:
> >
> > Copyright (c)1996,1997,1998 Ian Jackson and Christian Schwarz.
> >
> > Yet the manual has been modified by others since. Should the copyright
> > be updated?
>
> B
On Oct 20, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The policy weekly summary includes ``I further propose that the use
> of bzip2 be mandatory for newly uploaded source files''. This has been
> both seconded and objected to (its Bug#39299). I wouldn't say any sort
> of consensus has been reached personally. It need
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > bitmaps: /usr/X11R6/include/bitmaps
> This is wrong.
>
> > /usr/X11R6/include/X11/bitmaps
> This is correct.
>
> > pixmaps: /usr/X11R6/include/X11/pixmaps
> This is correct.
>
> > /usr/sha
On Wed, Oct 20, 1999 at 05:47:13AM +, Alexander Koch wrote:
> On Wed, 20 October 1999 11:07:47 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Now, who of the ones that *can* change policy is going to do
> > > anything on it? Please, can some of those give the many of
> > > us an idea of what is the problem
Hi Anthony.
On Wed, 20 October 1999 11:07:47 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Now, who of the ones that *can* change policy is going to do
> > anything on it? Please, can some of those give the many of
> > us an idea of what is the problem or (possibly) what I am
> > getting wrong?
>
> (a) There's
Following the .signature is a patch for dpkg that implements bzip2
support in dpkg-source and dpkg-buildpackage. For example:
dpkg-buildpackage -bz2 -rfakeroot
Note that dpkg-source -x will detect bz2 archives automatically; you
just need to tell it to use bz2 when building. Also, diffs are not
On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 01:01:26PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> I've just been looking at Contents-i386 to get an idea of where
> bitmaps and pixmaps are currently stored so that I can set up the new
> system.fvwm2rc file correctly, and I found a mess. The locations of
> public (as opposed to app
On Oct 20, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Now, who of the ones that *can* change policy is going to do
> > anything on it? Please, can some of those give the many of
> > us an idea of what is the problem or (possibly) what I am
> > getting wrong?
>
> (a) There's not much point changing policy when the c
On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 09:56:39PM +, Alexander Koch wrote:
> On Mon, 18 October 1999 13:15:36 -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> > On Oct 18, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Another possibility would be someone adding bzip2 support to dpkg et al,
> > > and having .orig.tar.bz2's, and data.tar.bz2. (Thi
13 matches
Mail list logo
