I read through the policy document today, trying to nitpick and find things
that have changed in current practice. Here's what I found:
* The policy manual uses the term "section" to refer to main, non-us,
non-free, and contrib. This overloads the term since we typically call
games, libs, docs
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | 2.3.6. The base system
> --
> |
> | The base system is a minimum subset of the Debian GNU/Linux system that is
> installed before everything else on a new system. Thus, only very few
> | packages are allowed to go into the
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 12:19:57AM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> > Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > The other objection I've seen is, basically, "the purity of the system
> > > is marred by the very presence of even the *names* of non-free
> >
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> non-us/main is very different from non-free. The first consists of
Raul> DFSG software with temporary and/or localized distribution problems.
Raul> The second consists of non-DFSG software.
Yes, I am aware of the obvious differ
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> What about that perl one liner? Or just plain old dpkg -s? Or vi
Raul> /var/lib/dpkg/status? Or, apt-cache dumpavail? Or future simple
programs
Raul> of various sorts?
dpkg and apt-cache could be modified to respect any ref
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> And the point is: we are supposed to support non-free packages, we're
Raul> not supposed to make them a part of debian.
A suggests is not making it part of Debian, espescially if the
user interface tools are modified not to
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> This isn't about "talking about other packages".
Then it should be. Your raison de etre seems to be that good
users shall find references to non-free software r5epugnant, and
hence one must purge all references from the pack
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 12:19:57AM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
>> I can't think of anything to add to that. Except to comment that it
>> might be rather difficult to document samba if you could never refer
>> to non-free software. :-
Darren O. Benham wrote:
> So (whoever was going to do this) filing bugs against packages for being in
> base section is premature until the amendment has been actually accepted
> into policy...
So if people think the way I handled it in my proposal was ok, I'll make
that a formal proposal.
--
se
So (whoever was going to do this) filing bugs against packages for being in
base section is premature until the amendment has been actually accepted
into policy...
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 10:40:36AM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Darren O. Benham wrote:
> > And policy does or does not dictate sections?
Darren O. Benham wrote:
> And policy does or does not dictate sections?
Policy dictates the base section, and indicates that other sections exist,
but does not describe them.
--
see shy jo
> > Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Personally, I think that hard-coding into a DFSG package a reference
> > > to some non-DFSG package is rather grotesque. I'm disappointed that
> > > we disagree on this issue.
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 07:20:39PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I don'
And policy does or does not dictate sections?
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 12:08:11AM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Darren O. Benham wrote, about the removal of the base section:
> > Is this, basicly, a part of policy now?
>
> Actually, policy is quite out of date on the issue:
>
> 2.3.6. Base packages
>
> [in one message]
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Personally, I think that hard-coding into a DFSG package a reference
> > to some non-DFSG package is rather grotesque. I'm disappointed that
> > we disagree on this issue.
>
> [in another message]
> Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Personally, I think that hard-coding into a DFSG package a reference
> > to some non-DFSG package is rather grotesque. I'm disappointed that
> > we disagree on this issue.
I don't think that's any worse than having a GPL-compatible package
reference a
[in one message]
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Personally, I think that hard-coding into a DFSG package a reference
> to some non-DFSG package is rather grotesque. I'm disappointed that
> we disagree on this issue.
[in another message]
Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The
Darren O. Benham wrote, about the removal of the base section:
> Is this, basicly, a part of policy now?
Actually, policy is quite out of date on the issue:
2.3.6. Base packages
The packages included in the `base' section have a special function.
They form a minimu
Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That is why we have a Bug Tracking System: these are bugs and should
> be dealt with through the BTS. Making policy changes to solve these
> problems is pointless: they will still need to be reported as bugs.
Quite right, perhaps I shouldn't have inter
> So let us just pretend that we just implement one of
> weak-suggests and reverse-suggests and call it Enhances, shall we? ;-)
I think there appears to be enough of a reason to allow both of these:
they both have their strengths and weaknesses, but both are useful in
some contexts:
weak
> People declare inappropriate Suggests all the time; anything we can do
> to reduce that would be a help. Suggests should have documentation
> attached explaining *why* the suggestion is made. Someone suggests
> "netscape", and that really loses when they should suggest
> "www-browser"; but then
> > > If the references are never displayed *to people who dio not
> > > want* tham, why is that so bad? And why are we going through hoops to
> > > impose the religion on everyone else as well?
Raul Miller wrote:
> > What do you mean by "display"? You want to chain people to dselect?
21 matches
Mail list logo
