On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 07:34:57PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
> Anthony> Are you going to go through the distribution and maintain a
> Anthony> list of which packages all these tags apply to, and which
> Anthony> they don't?
> Heh. Sure. I'll do
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
>> > This is a complete strawman. No one's said anything about adding 150+
>> > countries. Maybe two or three, or even half a dozen, but not 150+.
>> ANd, incidentally, if any tags are permitted, I shall insist
>> on at least non-india, non-bhutan, non-nep
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.0.0
Severity: wishlist
proposal.sgml and the files it generates appear to have been superseded
by policy-process.sgml and friends. The older documents should not be
installed.
Thanks,
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- S
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 12:51:35PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> [incidentally, your sigs all fail to verify, for some reason]
Geez, what now? Stupid bloody program.
> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
> Anthony> In truth, other members of the Debian community (using the
> Anthon
Your message dated 29 Jan 2001 16:40:23 -0600
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line policy: advises to use -s flag to install in wrong place
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 ca
>>"Bob" == Bob Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bob> While this is included in policy 3.2.1 (probably earlier - I
Bob> can't find it in the changelog), it is not mentioned in
Bob> upgrading-checklist.text.gz.
This was introduced in version 3.2.0.0. I should have been
mentio
Hi,
What is the rationale for requiring packages *not* to declare
a dependency on previous versions of perl? If I have a perl script
that depends on perl5.005, but fails for 5.6, why _can't_ I just say
so in the depends?
1.3. Module Path Can you give either the default locatio
Your message dated Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:43:30 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#83960: fixed in debian-policy 3.5.0.0
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 n
Your message dated Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:43:30 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#83924: fixed in debian-policy 3.5.0.0
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 n
Your message dated Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:43:30 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#83438: fixed in debian-policy 3.5.0.0
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 n
Your message dated Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:43:30 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#82966: fixed in debian-policy 3.5.0.0
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 n
Your message dated Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:43:30 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#83065: fixed in debian-policy 3.5.0.0
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 n
Your message dated Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:43:30 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#82743: fixed in debian-policy 3.5.0.0
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 n
Your message dated Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:43:30 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#80506: fixed in debian-policy 3.5.0.0
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 n
Your message dated Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:43:30 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#80347: fixed in debian-policy 3.5.0.0
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 n
Your message dated Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:43:30 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#80342: fixed in debian-policy 3.5.0.0
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 n
Your message dated Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:43:30 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#79891: fixed in debian-policy 3.5.0.0
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 n
Your message dated Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:43:30 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#75925: fixed in debian-policy 3.5.0.0
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 n
Hi,
[incidentally, your sigs all fail to verify, for some reason]
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 01:05:43AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Anthony> Actually we're currently making the determination on whether
Anthony> the software's legal to di
Installing:
virtual-package-names-list.text byhand
mime-policy.text.gz byhand
debconf_specification.txt.gz byhand
menu-policy.text.gz byhand
debian-policy_3.5.0.0.dsc
to pool/main/d/debian-policy/debian-policy_3.5.0.0.dsc
debian-policy_3.5.0.0_all.deb
to pool/main/d/debian-policy/debian-policy
>>"Colin" == Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Colin> In a non-free package I maintain, I explain in
Colin> debian/copyright why the package is in non-free, to aid CD-ROM
Colin> distributors trying to decide whether they can include the
Colin> package. Does this mean that I have to add
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 12:42:22PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>"Jakob" == Jakob Bøhm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Jakob> no-source (example: Netscape, opera)
> > Jakob> no-commercial-use (example: zyxel)
> > Jakob> payment-required (example: ope
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 10:09:45AM -0500, Bob Hilliard wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 04:14:47PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > s/packages should/packages conforming to policy version 3.2.0 or greater
> > > should/
> > >
> > > "should" refe
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 04:14:47PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > s/packages should/packages conforming to policy version 3.2.0 or greater
> > should/
> >
> > "should" referring to the Policy definition, meaning that this is optional
> > (though rec
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>"Jakob" == Jakob Bøhm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jakob> no-source (example: Netscape, opera)
> Jakob> no-commercial-use (example: zyxel)
> Jakob> payment-required (example: opera<5.0)
> Jakob> contains-crypto (example: RSA, gnupg)
> Jakob> uses-us-
25 matches
Mail list logo
