Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This would take the form of a `Known-Problems' field in the .changes
> file. Initially this would be an X-C-Known-Problems so that old
> versions of dpkg-dev can build packages; the archive script would
> understand both. The syntax would be something l
> Http_proxy and web clients (#54524)
> * Under discussion.
> * Proposed by Nicolás Lichtmaier; seconded by Chris Lawrence and
> J.H.M. Dassen.
> * Requires that all web clients must honour the http_proxy
> environment variable, and that they should honour the ftp_proxy
> veraibe
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Joey Hess wrote:
> >Amendments
> >
> > Changes in handling library dependencies (#55730)
> > * Under discussion.
>
> I don't think the proposal itself is under discussion, everyone seems
> t
Chris Waters wrote:
> Moreover, this is a technical change, and I think those follow
> somewhat different rules, no? And IIRC, it's not really a policy
> change; the bug was filed against the packaging manual, no? Should it
> even be on this list?
No, it was filed on the policy manual, see the b
Zed Pobre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2000 at 11:01:30PM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
> > a binary is not meant to be called by the user, it is a bug to have it in
> > the PATH.
> Yup. It probably is. In some cases, a permanent bug, since sheer
> logistics are going t
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [1 ]
> Previously Joey Hess wrote:
> >Amendments
> > Changes in handling library dependencies (#55730)
> > * Under discussion.
> I don't think the proposal itself is under discussion, everyone seems
> to agree it i
Seth R Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> undocumented.7 points people to /usr/doc/foo and /usr/lib/foo -- but not
> /usr/share/doc/foo
At the moment, it shouldn't need to -- while it's true that we're
migrating to /usr/share/doc, it is still a bug to not have a link in
/usr/doc. And it's *not
Previously Joey Hess wrote:
>Amendments
>
> Changes in handling library dependencies (#55730)
> * Under discussion.
I don't think the proposal itself is under discussion, everyone seems
to agree it is a good idea. The only disc
On Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 04:06:33PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Here's what's been happening on debian-policy lately. Let me know about
> consensuses I have missed.
I'm afraid I don't understand what your criteria are for determining
consensus; I made my 9 X policy proposals on the same day. It look
Here's what's been happening on debian-policy lately. Let me know about
consensuses I have missed.
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-weekly.html.
seconded
> Well, it seems that my update-rc.d clarifications were confusing. So
> here is an attempt to clean up the wording in section 3.3.1 of
> policy. There is no intended change of meaning, but it clarifies that
> we are only talking about maintainer scripts and not human
> administrators.
Roman Hodek wrote:
>
> > How do we ensure that someone upgrading a package from potato to woody
> > pulls in all of the required libraries? As a "concrete" example,
> > /usr/bin/foo in the foo package depends upon libbar directly and
> > libbar depends upon libbaz indirectly. In potato, libbar d
12 matches
Mail list logo
