On Mon, 21 May 2001, Chris Waters wrote:
> > Something more like ``The location of all installed files and directories
> > must comply with the Linux Filesystem Hierarchy Standard, except where
> > indicated otherwise (or where it's just plain stupid).''
>
> Perfect. Let's do it!
>
> (I might s
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 08:27:49AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Something more like ``The location of all installed files and directories
> must comply with the Linux Filesystem Hierarchy Standard, except where
> indicated otherwise (or where it's just plain stupid).''
Perfect. Let's do it!
(I
On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 07:24:35PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> But, basically, you don't need to waste time getting permission for doing
> this: if it's the right thing to do (and a superficial study seems to
> indicate that it is) just go ahead and do it.
Well, discussing it on -policy has alread
On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 06:04:42PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Please go back and reread the thread about this immediately after
> potato's release: the problem with tasks as they existed for potato
> was that they make it very hard to cope with RC bugs in packages in
> a task. If any one package
On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 11:43:08AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> --- debian-policy.sgml~ Mon May 21 10:45:51 2001
> +++ debian-policy.sgmlMon May 21 10:54:35 2001
> @@ -3982,8 +3982,8 @@
> Linux File system Structure
>
> - The location of all installed files an
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.4.0
Severity: wishlist
There is a bit of a glaring bug in policy. An earlier attempt to
address this was made in #60461, but it seems like people found that
one confusing, and there has been no progress on it. This proposal is
intended to supersede #60461, whi
Anand Kumria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> > Well, to elaborate a bit more, a ladspa plugin package would not depend on
> > any shared library, or sometimes libc/libm. But that would not be a very
> > informative dependency information. Such a package would usually be
> > useful o
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this problem report. It has been forwarded to the developer(s) and
to the developers mailing list to accompany the original report.
Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
Debian Policy List
If you wish to co
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 12:34:48AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Anand Kumria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
>
> > > I would like to propose ladspa-host and ladspa-plugin as names of virtual
> > > packages which
> > >
> > > ladspa-host: application capable of using ladspa-plugins t
Anand Kumria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> > I would like to propose ladspa-host and ladspa-plugin as names of virtual
> > packages which
> >
> > ladspa-host: application capable of using ladspa-plugins to process audio
> > data
> > ladspa-plugin: provides plug-in libraries in a
On 21-May-01, 05:22 (CDT), Patrik Hagglund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't see what you mean by "the initial value of the IFS
> variable". Is there anything that is unspecified for field
> splitting in IEEE Std. 1003.2-1992? Isn't "If IFS is not set, the
> shell shall behave as if the value o
On 19.V.2001 at 11:27 Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> 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.
> ! The standard shell interpreter `/bin/sh' is a
> ! symbolic link to a POSIX compatible shell. Since the POSIX
> ! standard for shells leaves important areas unspecified,
> ! wherever it is lacking, `/bin/sh' shall follow the
> ! consensus behavior of other shell int
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> That's what change logs are for. Perhaps there should be a
Raul> release-oriented changelog?
Raul> It does seem reasonable that we should have some sort of
Raul> queuing mechanism to park proposed policy changes as they're
Raul> trie
>>"Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joey> Anthony Towns wrote:
>> > You are the release manager. File the bugs, declare them
>> > release critical [...]
>>
>> Okay. Whatever. I really don't have the patience for -policy anymore.
Joey> You know, neither do I.
Ah. T
On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 01:10:41AM -0700, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
> > On Sun, May 20, 2001 at 11:55:21AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> > Upgrading from potato to woody and beyond works fine, nothing breaks,
> > you merely don't get your tasks to upgrade cleanly by simply using apt.
> Isn't that gener
On Mon, 21 May 2001 18:04:42 +1000
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, May 20, 2001 at 11:55:21AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> Upgrading from potato to woody and beyond works fine, nothing breaks,
> you merely don't get your tasks to upgrade cleanly by simply using apt.
Isn't that ge
On Sun, May 20, 2001 at 11:55:21AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > You are the release manager. File the bugs, declare them
> > > release critical [...]
> > Okay. Whatever. I really don't have the patience for -policy anymore.
> I agree with Manoj on th
On Sun, 20 May 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > You are the release manager. File the bugs, declare them
> > release critical [...]
>
> Okay. Whatever. I really don't have the patience for -policy anymore.
I agree with Manoj on this. task packages exist potato and woody. That means
we have t
19 matches
Mail list logo
