On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 01:46:10PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> Seconded.
Thanks
> It would be nice if there were a footnote to the first sentence listing
> the D-P sections that conflicted...
Yes, I suppose it might be. But I'm too lazy to write one right now,
and I'd rather not stretch th
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.5.4.0
> Severity: wishlist
> In section 11.2, it is mandated that every library provides a static
> and a shared version. I don't think this is appropriate, as there
> are programming languages whose shared library s
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> forwarded 72335 debian-policy@lists.debian.org
Bug#72335: [PROPOSAL] Optional build-arch and build-indep targets for
debian/rules
Noted your statement that Bug has been forwarded to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> retitle 72335 [ACCEPTED 10/6/2001] Optional build
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 42399 lintian
Bug#42399: [SEE 66023] Treat plugins and shared libraries differently
Bug#65345: lintian treats all .so files as shared libraries
Bug reassigned from package `debian-policy' to `lintian'.
> reassign 65345 lintian
Bug#65345: linti
reassign 42399 lintian
reassign 65345 lintian
merge 42399 65345
thanks
Now that policy has fixed the shared library issue, lintian can
consider doing the same.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Que
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.4.0
Severity: wishlist
In section 11.2, it is mandated that every library provides a static
and a shared version. I don't think this is appropriate, as there
are programming languages whose shared library support is still
evolving.
The whole discussion in thi
Your message dated Sat, 9 Jun 2001 23:41:00 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#100202: debian-policy: Not all documents are registered
with doc-base
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 98291 normal
Bug#98291: being truthful about the FHS and us
Severity set to `normal'.
> retitle 98291 [AMENDMENT 09/06/2001] Clarifying FHS policy
Bug#98291: being truthful about the FHS and us
Changed Bug title.
> thanks
Stopping processing
On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 08:39:44PM -0300, Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote:
> - http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/05/20/1431230&mode=thread -- Why
> Unicode Won't Work on the Internet
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/06/06/0132203 -- Why Unicode Will
Work On The Internet
[In essence: unicode
severity 98291 normal
retitle 98291 [AMENDMENT 09/06/2001] Clarifying FHS policy
thanks
With seconds from Arthur Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and Steve Greenland
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, this is now a formal amendment.
Since this proposal has already been discussed quite a bit, no
packages are affected,
Radovan Garabik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit
> > TELL ME HOW IN THE HELL I CAN WRITE A MAIL WITH WORDS FROM
> > HUNGARIAN, SLOVAK, RUSSIAN AN JAPANESE TOGETHER
> >
> > Unicode was not panacea, but it solved most of the problems,
> > although setting it up was not painless.
On Sat, J
On 09-Jun-01, 11:53 (CDT), Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- debian-policy.sgml~ Mon May 21 10:45:51 2001
> +++ debian-policy.sgmlThu Jun 7 11:59:58 2001
> @@ -3983,8 +3983,9 @@
>
>
> The location of all installed files and directories must
> -
Seconded
Chris Waters schrieb:
> --- debian-policy.sgml~ Mon May 21 10:45:51 2001
> +++ debian-policy.sgmlThu Jun 7 11:59:58 2001
> @@ -3983,8 +3983,9 @@
>
>
> The location of all installed files and directories must
> - comply with the Linux File syste
Ok, here, as promised, is the final draft.
I've let this idle for a bit while I was doing other things, so here's
a quick recap for those who missed or forgot the original discussion.
Policy says you must follow the FHS, period, and then goes on to say
you must do things (the /usr/doc symlink, fo
Radovan Garabik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit
> TELL ME HOW IN THE HELL I CAN WRITE A MAIL WITH WORDS FROM
> HUNGARIAN, SLOVAK, RUSSIAN AN JAPANESE TOGETHER
>
> Unicode was not panacea, but it solved most of the problems,
> although setting it up was not painless.
This has nothing t
Radovan Garabik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit
> well... it seems to be a stateful (sp?) encoding scheme...
> while this is OKish for text documents and mail messages,
> it is definitely not suitable for file names and similar
That statement is not quite correct. It is not unsuitable for
Hi
Marco d'Itri schrieb:
> >Granted, unicode might not be ready for Japanese.
> >But, should we wait until it is ready?
> Yes. I have no desire to suffer because you consider more elegant
> switching everything to unicode right now.
As Radovan wrote in this thread some time back:
> > I would no
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.4.0
Severity: wishlist
Not all the documents in the package are registered with doc-base, e.g.:
menu-policy
policy-process
fhs
-- System Information
Debian Release: 2.2
Kernel Version: Linux lilith 2.2.19 #2 Sat May 19 15:35:09 BST 2001 i686 unknown
Versions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Hello Radovan,
Thursday, June 07, 2001, 5:58:31 PM, you wrote:
> submitted to BTS but since master is down, I am posting a copy to
> debian-policy as well
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.5.5.0
> Severity: wishlist
> Following proposed ad
[Sorry for hijacking an unrelated reply]
>*Addition to 13.5 Preferred documentation formats:
>
>HTML documents, if in encoding other than us-ascii, must
>have in their header an appropriate META tag describing the used encoding.
Shouldn't that be "iso-8859-1 (latin1)" instead of
20 matches
Mail list logo
