Hello Steve,
On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 02:20:55PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> Will you *please* stop harping on this? A substantial percentage of us
> think we *are* following the FHS w.r.t. sbin and traceroute. You don't
> agree, that's fine, but please stop making this statement as if your
Hi,
it is not really a typo, under 6.6 it reads:
When we configure a package (this happens with dpkg --install and dpkg
--configure), we first update any conffiles and then call:
^
The marked 's' (in conffiles) is not in the and therefore
appearing in n
On 27-Jun-01, 07:09 (CDT), Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Agreed. So should we close this bug report?
>
Yes, please.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 26-Jun-01, 23:02 (CDT), Rene Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Do we really mean "must" for FHS compatibility if we are advocating
> ignoring its directives for the sbin directories?
Will you *please* stop harping on this? A substantial percentage of us
think we *are* following the FHS w.r.t
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 10:10:27AM +0100, Edward Betts wrote:
> > # 2.3.3. The description of a package
> > # ---
> > # Copyright statements and
> > # other administrivia should not be included either (that is what the
> > # cop
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 100631 normal
Bug#100631: [PROPOSAL] Restrict http access to /usr/share/doc
Severity set to `normal'.
> retitle 100631 [AMMENDMENT 28/06/2001] Restrict http access to /usr/share/d=
Bug#100631: [PROPOSAL] Restrict http access to /usr/share/doc
severity 100631 normal
retitle 100631 [AMMENDMENT 28/06/2001] Restrict http access to /usr/share/doc
bye
This proposal has two seconds and no ammendments. Since it has generated
no controversy, I'm setting the discussion period of 10 days, which will
end on 8 July 2001.
Thanks,
Steve
--
Steve G
On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 02:03:31PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 07:21:56PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > So at this point, are people doing this specifically to annoy me, or what?
> Yes, it's all a conspiracy. Our desire to make everything consistent
> and exactly rig
On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 07:21:56PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> So at this point, are people doing this specifically to annoy me, or what?
Yes, it's all a conspiracy. Our desire to make everything consistent
and exactly right is not motivated by hackishness but by an evil plot
against your sanit
On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 10:10:27AM +0100, Edward Betts wrote:
> # 2.3.3. The description of a package
> # ---
> # Copyright statements and
> # other administrivia should not be included either (that is what the
> # copyright file is for).
> The descrip
Section 2.3.3 of policy says copyright information should not appear in
descriptions.
# 2.3.3. The description of a package
# ---
#
# Every Debian package must have an extended description stored in the
# appropriate field of the control record.
#
#
I'm not sure whether this should be a policy bit (probably not) or a
developer's ref manual thing. And since I don't know how the docs
have been reorganized or what the plan is, I don't want to say. So
it's a proposal for whichever doc it most belongs in, but I think it
belongs somewhere.
I've
12 matches
Mail list logo
