Hello,
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 03:18:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> And here we go again. Policy is *not* a set of hard and fast rules for
> building packages. It has bugs, it's missing exceptions that should be
> there, it doesn't cover everything that should be covered, it suggests
> sub
On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 07:09:30PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 09:26:20AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> >
> > misconfigured, then that solves his problem. Does the general
> > suggestion retain much value, though?
>
> Personally I don't see why a root user should have a PA
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 102204 [AMENDMENT 2001/06/26] Downgrade emacs/tex to optional
Bug#102204: [AMENDMENT 2001/06/26] Downgrade emacs/tex to optional
Changed Bug title.
> severity 102204 normal
Bug#102204: [AMENDMENT 2001/06/26] Downgrade emacs/tex to optional
Bug#
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 102199 [AMENDMENT 2001/06/26] Next stage in usr/doc -> usr/share/doc
> transition
Bug#102199: [AMENDMENT 2001/06/26] Next stage in usr/doc -> usr/share/doc
transition
Changed Bug title.
> severity 102199 normal
Bug#102199: [AMENDMENT 2001/06/
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 12:02:27AM -0400, Rene Weber wrote:
> [...] Do we
> really mean "must" for FHS compatibility if we are advocating ignoring its
> directives for the sbin directories?
And here we go again. Policy is *not* a set of hard and fast rules for
building packages. It has bugs, it'
5 matches
Mail list logo