Re: Bug#97755: PROPOSAL] eliminating task packages; new task system

2001-05-19 Thread Anthony Towns
> You are the release manager. File the bugs, declare them > release critical [...] Okay. Whatever. I really don't have the patience for -policy anymore. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mai

Bug#97755: PROPOSAL] eliminating task packages; new task system

2001-05-19 Thread Manoj Srivastava
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hi, >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Anthony> Because tasks are an important component of making the Anthony> installer usable, and they're currently completely broken Anthony> (in that around half of the existing tasks in sid simply

Tightening up specification of /bin/sh

2001-05-19 Thread Zack Weinberg
Currently the only requirements on the shell interpreter /bin/sh are that it should adhere to the relevant POSIX standard, and that "echo -n" should not produce a newline. Unfortunately, POSIX leaves a large number of shell features unspecified. In most of these cases there is general agreement a

Bug#97755: PROPOSAL] eliminating task packages; new task system

2001-05-19 Thread Anthony Towns
On Sat, May 19, 2001 at 03:32:17PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > But what's the driving necessity to get this into policy in a > hurry? Because tasks are an important component of making the installer usable, and they're currently completely broken (in that around half of the existing t

Bug#87510: I second this proposal

2001-05-19 Thread Anthony Towns
On Sat, May 19, 2001 at 10:49:28PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: > On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 11:08:01PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote: > > > The other is that it's completely wrongheaded > > > to convert a policy from being entirely optional (you /may/ declare > > > build-depends) s

Bug#87510: I second this proposal

2001-05-19 Thread Julian Gilbey
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 11:08:01PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote: > > The other is that it's completely wrongheaded > > to convert a policy from being entirely optional (you /may/ declare > > build-depends) straight to being compulsory. > > Section 2.4.2 says /should/: Yes, po

Bug#97755: PROPOSAL] eliminating task packages; new task system

2001-05-19 Thread Manoj Srivastava
Hi, >>"Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Mind you, I like the proposal, and were it not for the issue >> of timing, I would probably have seconded this. Joey> It's all about timing, unfortunatly -- we have to get this done before Joey> woody base is frozen, and that includes g

Re: Bug#97755: [PROPOSAL] eliminating task packages; new task system

2001-05-19 Thread Richard Braakman
On Sat, May 19, 2001 at 07:55:13PM +0300, Anton Zinoviev wrote: > A maintainer can and may not be aware of the needs of some task. An > example: why the maintainer of recode should know that some of the > filters of magicfilter needs recode and that magicfilter belongs to the > task printing? Hmm

Re: Bug#97755: [PROPOSAL] eliminating task packages; new task system

2001-05-19 Thread Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > For example what display manager we will choose: gdm, kdm, wdm or xdm? > Maybe gdm, because it provides session menu, but it looks to me a little > buggy. I'm giving this only as an example. Surely there will be > conflicts. What does it mean that gd

Re: Bug#97755: [PROPOSAL] eliminating task packages; new task system

2001-05-19 Thread Anton Zinoviev
On 16.V.2001 at 22:43 Joey Hess wrote: > + > + > + You should not tag any packages as belonging to a task before > + this has been discussed on the `debian-devel' mailing list and > + a consensus about doing that has been reached. > + A consensus is