Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Should we not wait until we have a working system before we
> write this down in stone? It seems likely that we shall have design
> tweaks as we work through implementing this, and once the design and
> the interfaces have stabilized would be the time to propose
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 11:18:17PM +0100, Charles Briscoe-Smith wrote:
> Since the task wouldn't actually be installed in any permanent sense
> (there's no task package to install), upgrading a task would probably
> just consist of selecting it again with tasksel.
Well, it depends how/if you want
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 97072 [ACCEPTED 2001/05/18] correct policy's comments on
> standards-version
Bug#97072: [AMENDMENT 2001/05/11] correct policy's comments on standards-version
Changed Bug title.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need
retitle 97072 [ACCEPTED 2001/05/18] correct policy's comments on
standards-version
thanks
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 01:52:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> retitle 97072 [AMENDMENT 2001/05/11] correct policy's comments on
> standards-version
> This is correcting an error, so deadline for discussi
Hi,
Should we not wait until we have a working system before we
write this down in stone? It seems likely that we shall have design
tweaks as we work through implementing this, and once the design and
the interfaces have stabilized would be the time to propose this as
policy. This is
[Sorry if I'm talking nonsense here; I've only recently started reading
debian-policy again, so I may be further out of touch than I think.]
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 05:46:48PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> > Rather than having task packages any more, individual packages that
> > belong to a tas
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 91252 [ACCEPTED 2001-05-17] enhanced x-terminal-emulator policy,
> second try
Bug#91252: [AMENDMENT 2001-05-06] enhanced x-terminal-emulator policy, second
try
Changed Bug title.
> forwarded 91252 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#91252: [ACCEPTED 2001-0
retitle 91252 [ACCEPTED 2001-05-17] enhanced x-terminal-emulator policy, second
try
forwarded 91252 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
thanks
Amendment was accepted without discussion.
--
G. Branden Robinson | You could wire up a dead rat to a DIMM
Debian GNU/Linux| socket and th
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> close 97755
Bug#97755: [PROPOSAL] eliminating task packages; new task system
Bug closed, send any further explanations to debian-boot@lists.debian.org,
debian-policy@lists.debian.org
> reopen 97755
Bug#97755: [PROPOSAL] eliminating task packages; new
This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report
#97755: [PROPOSAL] eliminating task packages; new task system,
which was filed against the debian-policy package.
It has been marked as closed by one of the developers, namely
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
You should be hearing from the
close 97755
reopen 97755
severity 97755 normal
retitle 97755 [AMENDMENT 17/05/2001] eliminating task packages; new task system
thanks
Having quickly received 3 seconds (by Anthony Towns, Henrique de
Moraes Holschuh, and Bas Zoetekouw), this is now an amendment.
--
see shy jo
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Joey Hess wrote:
> --- policy.sgml.orig Tue May 15 21:57:25 2001
> +++ policy.sgml Tue May 15 22:14:28 2001
> @@ -1024,6 +1024,38 @@
>
>
>
> +
> + Tasks
> +
> +
> + The Debian install process allows the user to choose from
>
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy
Module name:debian-policy
Changes by: jdg Thu May 17 04:25:41 PDT 2001
Modified files:
. : policy.sgml upgrading-checklist.html
debian : changelog
Log message:
* Finished chapter 11
* Add a dpkg-statoverride des
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 10:43:31PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> After a lot of discussion, AJ and I have settled on a compromise that is
> acceptable to both of us about what to do to fix Debian's broken[1] task
> system.
Dusk. A siren squealing in the distance, maybe police, maybe
ambulance, it's
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 08:30:50PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2001, Richard Braakman wrote:
> >It also doesn't require more than the name and the date, and it doesn't
> >forbid you from removing the notices for previous changes. So your
> ^
Hi Joey!
You wrote:
> After a lot of discussion, AJ and I have settled on a compromise that is
> acceptable to both of us about what to do to fix Debian's broken[1] task
> system.
Looks great to me. I second it.
--
Kind regards,
+
16 matches
Mail list logo
