On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 12:12:30PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> As for (b), no, we're aiming for compatibility! Grrr! :-)
No, I mean we're aiming to move all the docs to /usr/share/doc for woody
anyway; so this issue is just about done with anyway. (Well, except that
the existance of the symlink
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 09:17:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> (The exceptions we allow are cases where (a) the FHS doesn't really say
> anything useful, like where CVS repositories should go, and (b) /usr/doc,
> which we're aiming for compliance with anyway. Are there more?)
As for (a), the FH
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 72335 normal
Bug#72335: [PROPOSAL] Optional build-arch and build-indep targets for
debian/rules
Severity set to `normal'.
> title 72335 [AMENDMENT 23/5/2001] Optional build-arch and build-indep targets
> for debian/rules
Unknown command or m
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 66023 [ACCEPTED 22/05/2001] Treat plugins and shared libraries
> differently
Bug#66023: [AMENDMENT 06/05/2001] Treat plugins and shared libraries differently
Changed Bug title.
> forwarded 66023 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#66023: [ACCEPTED 22/05/200
severity 72335 normal
title 72335 [AMENDMENT 23/5/2001] Optional build-arch and build-indep targets
for debian/rules
thanks
Once again, this proposal (in its amended form) has gained two
seconds. I propose a 10 day discussion period.
The question of how to handle the use of this is still a litt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 09:09:03AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > I should probably shut up about this, but something has always
> > bugged me (which means I'm probably doing it wrong).
> >
> > Take for example /usr/share/doc/d
retitle 66023 [ACCEPTED 22/05/2001] Treat plugins and shared libraries
differently
forwarded 66023 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
thanks
More than two weeks have passed since the last messages about this, and we
had a consensus about it. (I could write a new patch, if necessary, but I'd
rather leave it to the
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 09:17:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 09:03:57AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > How about: "must be compatible with and should comply with" the FHS.
> > (Here I'm using RFC meanings of must and should; if this is a problem
> > at the moment, try "
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 07:09:03PM +1000, Edward C. Lang wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 06:57:19PM -0500, Thomas Smith wrote:
> > How about:
> >
> > The location of all installed files and directories must be compatible with
> > the
> > Linux Filesystem Heirarchy Standard (FHS), and should be c
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 09:03:57AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> How about: "must be compatible with and should comply with" the FHS.
> (Here I'm using RFC meanings of must and should; if this is a problem
> at the moment, try "should be compatible with and ideally should
> comply with").
Is there
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 06:57:19PM -0500, Thomas Smith wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 10:59:11AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 09:03:57AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> >
> > > How about: "must be compatible with and should comply with" the FHS.
> > [or]
> > > "should be
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 08:02:17PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> If you have the time to sit down and do the jobs you've just listed,
> fantastic, please do it [...]
Well, I already have my hands full with release trivia, but there are
definitely some things I can do. My concern has been that the
12 matches
Mail list logo
