On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 05:21:09PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Fast forward 8 months to the present, and I'm seeing a huge number of
> people who don't have the slightest clue about task packages. Did they
> forget so soon? Did they not pay attention last winter? I don't know..
Well, existing practi
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 03:45:59AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 05:22:59PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > If not, I object to any change in the priority system until we achieve
> > a consistent system with the current priorities.
> Heh. I don't think we can get a consis
On 14-Dec-00, 17:20 (CST), Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 01:09:33PM -0500, Susan G. Kleinmann wrote:
>
> > But I think we're all hoping that the FDL actually becomes common,
> > and putting it into the common-licenses directory is one step toward
> > making tha
Peter Palfrader wrote:
> Why no? I'ld guess telling the debhelper maintainer about this issue is not
> that of a bad idea.
Well to start with, debhelper != dh-make.
BTW, and FWIW, I do not belive the FDL is a DFSG complient license if
invarient sections are used. Besides invarient sections it has
In general, I like the names and descriptions better than what we have
currently. However, I see a problem with the criterion for "getting
something into common". It is likely that some maintainers will take
it as an insult to have their package "demoted" to common, and to
> I'd think a restricti
On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 05:22:59PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > If you convince the ftp.debian.org maintainers to fix *all* the bugs
> > (not only those of important severity), fine.
>
> This isn't just a matter of having the ftpmasters finally get ar
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 05:22:59PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Anthony Towns:
> > For woody, it'd be nice if we could use the Priority field consistently.
> It would be even nicer if we could use the override file consistently,
Well, yes, that too, obviously.
>Packages may not depend on pac
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 11:03:26AM -0500, Bob Hilliard wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > It could be used something like:
> > * nothing in optional or above can conflict
> I think this would be a mistake. This would make all MTAs,
> except the one anointed as standard, become extra.
In
Anthony Towns:
> For woody, it'd be nice if we could use the Priority field consistently.
It would be even nicer if we could use the override file consistently,
but it seems there is not enough ftp.debian.org manpower to fix the
wrong priorities. I refer to this rule in policy:
Packages may no
Anthony Towns writes:
> It could be used something like:
>
> * nothing in optional or above can conflict
I think this would be a mistake. This would make all MTAs,
except the one anointed as standard, become extra. I think conflicts
should be permitted in common, optional and extra
Hi Jim!
Susan wrote in the mail you replied to:
| OK, then I guess you should forward this report to debhelper.
and in the original report:
| The debhelper script dh_make inserts a sample manpage.sgml.ex file into
| a new debian directory when a package is being built. This sample file
| refers
* Jim Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001215 07:04]:
> Perhaps one reason it's not a common license, is it's unknown whether
> the license is dfsg-free. I certainly don't know; there may be others
> like me:)
Does any of this really matter?
I'm all for adding any old blasted license to the common-lice
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 05:55:52AM -0800, Jim Lynch wrote:
> Here's a datapoint for ya... this is proof that "everyone wants this license
> in the base of debian" isn't true, at least not now.
>
> What is FDL?
Free Documentation License. You can find it in licenses section of
gnu.org.
--
Christ
Hi, and no :)
the way to make a license common is for its use to increase. If you are
a developer, you can start by including the text for it in your package.
Another way, try incorporating software that uses that license.
Perhaps one reason it's not a common license, is it's unknown whether
the
Here's a datapoint for ya... this is proof that "everyone wants this license
in the base of debian" isn't true, at least not now.
What is FDL?
Q.E.D.
-Jim
On Friday 15 December 2000 15:10, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I'd think a restriction something like ``all `common' packages must be
> included in at least one task'', which means they only get to be common
> if they can convince one of the task maintainers to include their package.
So this is not a su
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 02:57:43PM +0100, Mariusz Przygodzki wrote:
> On Friday 15 December 2000 13:58, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > For woody, it'd be nice if we could use the Priority field consistently.
> > What do people think of something like:
> > common (new)
> > -- Everything th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 15 December 2000 13:58, Anthony Towns wrote:
> For woody, it'd be nice if we could use the Priority field consistently.
> What do people think of something like:
[snip]
> common (new)
> -- Everything that can be installed
> I just think that a license first needs to become common and then be added
> to that directory, not the other way around.
OK, then I guess you should forward this report to debhelper.
Thanks,
Susan
On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 01:09:33PM -0500, Susan G. Kleinmann wrote:
> > But is it really a common license? Perhaps dh_make's template manual page
> > should be corrected instead.
>
> I understand and appreciate the desirability of keeping the base-files
> package small. But I think we're all hop
Hello world,
For woody, it'd be nice if we could use the Priority field consistently.
What do people think of something like:
required
-- Essential packages and things they depend on. If you
remove these (and don't replace them with something
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 79538 [PROPOSED] FDL is missing from common-licenses
Bug#79538: FDL is missing from common-licenses
Changed Bug title.
> severity 79538 wishlist
Bug#79538: [PROPOSED] FDL is missing from common-licenses
Severity set to `wishlist'.
> retitle 72
# Unseconded proposals should be marked "[PROPOSED]" and have severity
# wishlist:
# Issue raised
# wishlist bug opened in BTS, with a subject of "[PROPOSED] ...".
# This is the pre discussion period, when the idea is kicked
# around, and polished.
retitle 79538
23 matches
Mail list logo
