Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 45406 [REJECTED] Config files must have manpages
Bug#45406: [REJECTED] Config files must have manpages
Changed Bug title.
(By the way, that Bug is currently marked as done.)
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assi
Your message dated Tue, 20 Jun 2000 02:31:49 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#13353: Keywords field for packages
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 10:40:41AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Copyright: Joe Programmer and Bob Hacker, 1996-1999
>
> What if you have as many copyright holders as dosemu?
And another killer of a question I just realised: what would be the
real bene
Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Copyright: Joe Programmer and Bob Hacker, 1996-1999
What if you have as many copyright holders as dosemu?
Copyright (C) 1992 Krishna Balasubramanian
Copyright (C) 1990,1991,1992,1993 Carnegie Mellon University
Copyright (C) 1992,1994 John E. Davis
Copyr
Your message dated Tue, 20 Jun 2000 00:54:29 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#45406: [PROPOSAL] Config files must have manpages
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the
John,
You originally proposed the following amendment to policy:
There is no mention of the UUCP-style locking required for serial
lines to prevent multiple communications programs from attempting to
use the same line at once. For a brief description of UUCP-style
serial locking, see the
On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 11:03:43AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 12:15:49PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Copyright: Joe Programmer and Bob Hacker, 1996-1999
> License: GPL
> License-details: see /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL
What if the license doesn't have a name?
> >
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy
Module name:debian-policy
Changes by: jdg Mon Jun 19 11:41:43 PDT 2000
Added files:
. : fhs-2.1-source.tar.gz fhs-2.1.pdf.gz
fhs-changes-2.1.html
Removed files:
. : fhs-2.1-pre-03.ta
On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 11:03:43AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 12:15:49PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
>
> > I would suggest a file with fields like the control files, something
> > like (comments with #'s):
>
> > Package: foo
> > Debianized-By: Debian Maintainer <[EMAIL P
> Do we have a consensus on what should be done? Are we happy with
> /usr/local/share/man?
Yes. Next revision of FHS will fix the issue.
Dan
On Tue, Apr 18, 2000 at 12:33:08AM -0700, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Aaargh. I give up on FHS. I have to admit that I haven't read the FHS
> > document, and indeed, it does mention /usr/share/man specifically, and it
> > doesn't mention /usr/local/sha
On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 12:15:49PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> I would suggest a file with fields like the control files, something
> like (comments with #'s):
> Package: foo
> Debianized-By: Debian Maintainer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Debianized-When: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:09:09 +0100 # output of
On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 09:10:00AM +0200, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Ditto; leaving it in copyright also makes it easy to remember to change
> > it if the license becomes more free in the future: you're just editing the
> > one file.
> > Cheers, aj
On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 02:52:38PM -0600, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> copyright - upstream author, location, copyright, license
>
> README.Debian - anything non-obvious about this package on Debian,
> which would include any overall configuration
>
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Ditto; leaving it in copyright also makes it easy to remember to change
> it if the license becomes more free in the future: you're just editing the
> one file.
> Cheers, aj
I think it could be interesting if this part of the file could be
parsed. I thin
Bdale Garbee wrote:
> In the time when we didn't have as many well-known filenames in each package,
> the current policy may have made sense. I don't really think it does today.
FWIW, I agree with Bdale's message 100%. Note that the concept of a
README.Debian file was introduced about 3 years ago
16 matches
Mail list logo
