Re: Frozen distribution?

> "Julian" == Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> 1. Create frozen between testing and unstable, initially as a >> copy of testing. 2. Create frozen between testing and >> unstable, initially as a copy of unstable. Julian> Surely 2 defeats the whole purpose of testin

Re: [PROPOSAL] cron.* scripts should be quiet

On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: > On 20010213T084841-0800, Joey Hess wrote: > > I dislike it. It's possible some package will exist that is _designed_ > > to fire off daily status reports by cron. We shouldn't prohibit such > > things without reason. > > An example is vrms. An

Re: debian-policy_3.5.1.0_i386.changes INSTALLED

On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 09:37:15PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 01:40:00PM -0500, Debian Installer wrote: > > Changes: debian-policy (3.5.1.0) unstable; urgency=low > > > * Update footnote about dpkg-shlibdeps now that it uses objdump; bump up > > minor version number

Re: Frozen distribution?

On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 04:29:33PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > Julian Gilbey wrote: > > During the run-up to a release, will "testing" become "frozen", or > > will we have four versions: stable, frozen, testing (continuously > > changing), unstable? We should modify the policy document to descri

Processed: Re: Bug#83069: PROPOSED] bringing X app-defaults policy into the era of XFree86 4

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > close 83069 Bug#83069: [PROPOSED] bringing X app-defaults policy into the era of XFree86 4 Bug closed, send any further explanations to Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > reopen 83069 Bug#83069: [PROPOSED] bringing X app-defaults policy into the e

Bug#83063: marked as done ([PROPOSED] enhanced x-terminal-emulator policy)

Your message dated Thu, 15 Feb 2001 18:28:43 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#83063: [PROPOSED] enhanced x-terminal-emulator policy 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

Re: debian-policy_3.5.1.0_i386.changes INSTALLED

On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 01:40:00PM -0500, Debian Installer wrote: > Changes: debian-policy (3.5.1.0) unstable; urgency=low > * Update footnote about dpkg-shlibdeps now that it uses objdump; bump up > minor version number for this If it's a footnote, it doesn't have the strength of Policy, n

Bug#85501: marked as done (typo in policy process chapter 3)

Your message dated Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:40:02 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#85501: fixed in debian-policy 3.5.1.0 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

Bug#86001: marked as done (ch13 typo)

Your message dated Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:40:03 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#86001: fixed in debian-policy 3.5.1.0 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

Bug#85993: marked as done (policy ch10 grammar)

Your message dated Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:40:02 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#85993: fixed in debian-policy 3.5.1.0 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

Bug#85986: marked as done (policy ch9 grammar issues)

Your message dated Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:40:02 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#85986: fixed in debian-policy 3.5.1.0 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

Bug#85982: marked as done (policy ch7 grammar issues)

Your message dated Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:40:02 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#85982: fixed in debian-policy 3.5.1.0 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

Bug#84636: marked as done (typo in virtual package list)

Your message dated Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:40:01 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#84636: fixed in debian-policy 3.5.1.0 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

Bug#85514: marked as done (more policy 6.5 grammar / typo issues)

Your message dated Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:40:02 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#85514: fixed in debian-policy 3.5.1.0 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

Bug#85511: marked as done (policy 6.5 grammar issue)

Your message dated Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:40:02 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#85511: fixed in debian-policy 3.5.1.0 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

Bug#85510: marked as done (policy 6.1 typo)

Your message dated Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:40:02 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#85510: fixed in debian-policy 3.5.1.0 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

Bug#85508: marked as done (policy 5.2 has an unclear sentence)

Your message dated Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:40:02 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#85508: fixed in debian-policy 3.5.1.0 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

Bug#85506: marked as done (policy 5.2 does not say that binary-indep must be non-interactive)

Your message dated Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:40:02 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#85506: fixed in debian-policy 3.5.1.0 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

Bug#85505: marked as done (policy section 4.0, upstream-version is poorly worded)

Your message dated Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:40:02 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#85505: fixed in debian-policy 3.5.1.0 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

Bug#85504: marked as done (grammar issue in policy 3.2.1)

Your message dated Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:40:02 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#85504: fixed in debian-policy 3.5.1.0 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

Bug#85497: marked as done (typo in policy manual)

Your message dated Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:40:02 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#85497: fixed in debian-policy 3.5.1.0 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

Bug#84641: marked as done (debian-policy: Obsolete virtual packages)

Your message dated Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:40:01 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#84641: fixed in debian-policy 3.5.1.0 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

Bug#84631: marked as done (typo in policy manual)

Your message dated Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:40:01 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#84631: fixed in debian-policy 3.5.1.0 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

Bug#84079: marked as done (debian-policy: proposal.* documents are obsolete)

Your message dated Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:40:00 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#84079: fixed in debian-policy 3.5.1.0 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

Bug#83487: marked as done (please add HTML version of FHS)

Your message dated Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:40:00 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#83487: fixed in debian-policy 3.5.1.0 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

debian-policy_3.5.1.0_i386.changes INSTALLED

Installing: virtual-package-names-list.text byhand mime-policy.text.gz byhand debconf_specification.txt.gz byhand menu-policy.text.gz byhand libc6-migration.text byhand debian-policy_3.5.1.0.dsc to pool/main/d/debian-policy/debian-policy_3.5.1.0.dsc policy.pdf.gz byhand policy.text.gz byhand pol

Re: Frozen distribution?

Julian Gilbey wrote: > During the run-up to a release, will "testing" become "frozen", or > will we have four versions: stable, frozen, testing (continuously > changing), unstable? We should modify the policy document to describe > the current practice. There is no "current practice" yet, really.

CVS jdg: * Undo Build-Depends change; Manoj had already done it and I hadn't noticed!

CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy Module name:debian-policy Changes by: jdg Thu Feb 15 04:30:16 PST 2001 Modified files: debian : changelog control rules Log message: * Undo Build-Depends change; Manoj had already done it and I hadn't noticed! * Removed bashism from

Re: Size limit for compressing files

On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 09:57:51AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote: > Policy says compress it "unless it is small". 4k is an arbitrary > choice AFAIK. Not quite so. It is based on the common block size of the file system. If you have a block size of 4 kb, all files between 1 and 4096 bytes will occupy

CVS jdg: * Add "links" to Build-Depends list

CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy Module name:debian-policy Changes by: jdg Thu Feb 15 03:45:02 PST 2001 Modified files: . : policy.sgml debian : changelog control rules Added files: . : fhs-2.1.html.tar.gz Log message: * A

Bug#65847: marked as done (packaging-manual: no mention of Build-Depends in chapter 4)

Your message dated Thu, 15 Feb 2001 02:12:53 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#65847: packaging-manual: no mention of Build-Depends in chapter 4 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If

Bug#26402: marked as done ([PROPOSED] packaging manual needs clarification about conffiles)

Your message dated Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:47:29 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#26402: [PROPOSED] packaging manual needs clarification about conffiles has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt wit

Processed: merge bugs

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > merge 64304 75955 Bug#64304: A question about uploading to "frozen" Bug#75955: Section 4.2.14 has obsolete information Merged 64304 75955. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Darren Benham (administrator, Debi

CVS jdg: Removing proposal.sgml

CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy Module name:debian-policy Changes by: jdg Thu Feb 15 03:03:17 PST 2001 Removed files: . : proposal.sgml Log message: Removing proposal.sgml

CVS jdg: * Corrected typos and grammatical errors found by Sean Perry

CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy Module name:debian-policy Changes by: jdg Thu Feb 15 02:57:53 PST 2001 Modified files: . : policy.sgml upgrading-checklist.html virtual-package-names-list.text debian : changelog rules

Re: Size limit for compressing files

On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 10:43:23AM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > >From the dh_compress man page: > > By default, dh_compress compresses files that debian policy mandates > should be compressed, namely all files in usr/share/info, usr/share/man, > usr/X11R6/man, and all files in us

Size limit for compressing files

>From the dh_compress man page: By default, dh_compress compresses files that debian policy mandates should be compressed, namely all files in usr/share/info, usr/share/man, usr/X11R6/man, and all files in usr/share/doc that are larger than 4k in size, (except the copyright file, .