On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 09:27:59PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Policy says:
> In the source package's `Standards-Version' control field, you must
> specify the most recent version number of this policy document with
> which your package complies. The current version number is 3.5.4.
package: debian-policy
severity: normal
I'm looking at section 13.8 in the current policy. It seems that
section requires non-native packages to install the debian changelog
but suggests with an at-most should that native packages do so. I
believe that policy should require with a must native pa
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 06:29:05PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Chris Waters wrote:
> > > - A change in the policy to remove the obsolete /usr/doc symlinks.
> > This is supposed to happen once enough packages make the transition.
> No, it is supposed to happen one release _after_ a release in which
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 09:27:59PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sun, 6 May 2001, Chris Waters wrote:
> > Didn't we already have this discussion? The Standards-Version field
> > is not a reliable indication of much of anything. I strongly object
> Policy says:
"Policy says" doesn't make the p
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 03:08:54AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 01:45:28AM -0500, Sam TH wrote:
>
> > On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 12:46:04AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >
> > > fonts shipped, such as their license information). If one
> > >
* Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20010506 21:27]:
> See above: I want to file a RC bug either because
> a) the package follows a too old policy or
For the /usr/doc problem, bugs with severity: normal have already been
filed by doogie and joeyh. For these packages, you simply have t
Chris Waters wrote:
> > - A change in the policy to remove the obsolete /usr/doc symlinks.
>
> This is supposed to happen once enough packages make the transition.
No, it is supposed to happen one release _after_ a release in which all
the packages have made the transition. So sarge at the earlie
On 06-May-01, 14:27 (CDT), Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Policy says:
>
> <-- snip -->
>
> In the source package's `Standards-Version' control field, you must
> specify the most recent version number of this policy document with
> which your package complies. The curren
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 04:53:12PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Yes, but if I amend the proposal like this, then it needs to be seconded all
> over again, doesn't it?
I don't see why. You need two seconds to go from "proposal" to
"amendment". To go from "amendment" to "accepted", you need
consen
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 09:27:59PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Policy says:
>
> <-- snip -->
>
> In the source package's `Standards-Version' control field, you must
> specify the most recent version number of this policy document with
> which your package complies. The current v
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 07:31:43PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> If noone has a good argument against this I'll send
> RC bugs in one week to force the upgrade of the Standards-Version.
The packages inetutils, gnumach, hurd and mig are only applicable to the Hurd,
and we have not determined yet
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 09:13:26PM +0200, Arthur Korn wrote:
> /usr/lib/menu is not shareable
Yes, it is. There's a reason why each entry starts:
?package()
Anyway, that's not really relevent -- /usr/share is for
architecture-independent static files. The FHS doesn't grant
exceptions for fi
On Sun, 6 May 2001, Chris Waters wrote:
> > I want to suggest to finish the FHS transition. This includes the
> > following steps:
>
> > - Packages with Standards-Version >= 3.0 must follow the FHS.
>
> Didn't we already have this discussion? The Standards-Version field
> is not a reliable indica
Chris Waters schrieb:
> (Plus, as a side issue, by a strict reading of the FHS, we should be
> using /usr/share/menu rather than /usr/lib/menu, which means RC bugs
> against nearly every package in the system!) :-)
/usr/lib/menu is not shareable, since it would be most confusing
to have a menu it
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 07:31:43PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> I want to suggest to finish the FHS transition. This includes the
> following steps:
> - Packages with Standards-Version >= 3.0 must follow the FHS.
Didn't we already have this discussion? The Standards-Version field
is not a reliab
Adrian Bunk wrote:
...
>Oliver Elphick ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) libpgsql
This package is obsolete and should not be included in any release.
--
Oliver Elphick[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
PGP: 102
Hi,
I want to suggest to finish the FHS transition. This includes the
following steps:
- Packages with Standards-Version >= 3.0 must follow the FHS.
Policy version 3.0.0.0 was released 30 Jun 1999 and I consider this
enough time for every maintainer to switch to at least this
Standards-Vers
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 01:45:28AM -0500, Sam TH wrote:
> Why should packages that require a particular font package for
> operation (and indeed normally require that package to be installed on
> the local system AND the remote system) not depend on their font
> packages?
Why did you not read the
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 05:41:44PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 01:22:50PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > I would prefer to let this rest until the initial amendment is in Policy,
> > since it's not very easy to get seconds and this amendment is already
> > overdue.
>
>
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 01:22:50PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> I would prefer to let this rest until the initial amendment is in Policy,
> since it's not very easy to get seconds and this amendment is already
> overdue.
Surely it's possible to change a proposed amendment before it is
accepted? Th
On 20010502T202937-0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Nah, I know how to munge things to produce its brand of ar files. :-)
That does not address my point.
(Anyway, I can only see a policy "should" supporting my view, so...)
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
retitle 66023 [AMENDMENT 06/05/2001] Treat plugins and shared libraries
differently
thanks
Four developers have seconded this proposal, so according to "3.3 Creating
an Amendment" of policy-process document, this proposal is an amendment.
I'm not sure about the date, the document says "[AMENDMEN
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 66023 [AMENDMENT 06/05/2001] Treat plugins and shared libraries
> differently
Bug#66023: [PROPOSAL] Treat plugins and shared libraries differently
Changed Bug title.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
* Anthony Towns [010506 00:05]:
> Seconded, with the proviso that I reserve the right to later be
> disagreeable about some of the "musts"...
AJ, I don't think anyone would ever expect you to give up being
disagreeable about "must"s. :) Actually, we might be rather
disappointed or disillusioned.
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 01:45:28AM -0500, Sam TH wrote:
> On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 12:46:04AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > fonts shipped, such as their license information). If one
> > or more of the fonts so packaged are necessary for proper
> >
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 12:46:04AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I am re-proposing this. The only change is the following two paragraphs:
>
> Fonts of any type supported by the X Window System must be
> be in a separate binary package from any execut
(Cc'ed to debian-boot)
(First in porbably a series of policy changes needed for woody...)
So, here's the deal. We need to get a proper policy for tasks fairly soon.
tasksel in sid supports a "Task:" header for packages so we can be a
little more flexible than having every task- depend on everyth
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 12:46:04AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> fonts shipped, such as their license information). If one
> or more of the fonts so packaged are necessary for proper
> operation of the package with which they are associated the
>
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 91252 normal
Bug#91252: [AMENDMENT 2001-05-06] enhanced x-terminal-emulator policy, second
try
Severity set to `normal'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> close 91252
Bug#91252: [PROPOSED] enhanced x-terminal-emulator policy, second try
Bug closed, send any further explanations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Branden
Robinson)
> reopen 91252
Bug#91252: [PROPOSED] enhanced x-terminal-emulator policy, second try
Bu
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> close 91257
Bug#91257: [PROPOSED] changes to X font policy
Bug closed, send any further explanations to Branden Robinson <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>
> reopen 91257
Bug#91257: [PROPOSED] changes to X font policy
Bug reopened, originator not changed.
> thanks
close 91257
reopen 91257
thanks
I am re-proposing this. The only change is the following two paragraphs:
Fonts of any type supported by the X Window System must be
be in a separate binary package from any executables,
libraries, or doc
On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 02:22:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> --- policy.sgml Sun Mar 25 01:34:33 2001
> +++ policy.sgml.x-terminal-emulator Sun Mar 25 02:17:56 2001
> @@ -5976,13 +5976,31 @@
>
>
> Packages that provide a terminal emulator for the X
> - Window S
close 91252
reopen 91252
retitle 91252 [AMENDMENT 2001-05-06] enhanced x-terminal-emulator policy,
second try
thanks
Per these seconds:
Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I am marking this proposal as a formal amendment, and s
34 matches
Mail list logo
