[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian Mays) writes:
> I've learned that too. They also don't read the documentation in
> /usr/share/doc/.
And really, how could they? My *laptop* has 884 packages installed.
If I try "wc /usr/share/doc/*/README.Debian", that alone is:
4449 24692 168612 total
To expect
On Sat, Nov 17, 2001 at 08:01:29PM -0500, Carl Fink wrote:
> Why is SPI so against frequent, less-dramatically-different releases,
> anyway?
Please help us if you care. http://qa.debian.org/ is a good place to
start.
> Note: I'm posting this to Debian-Policy as well as Debian-User, and
> suggest
Branden Robinson writes ("Bug#119517: pcmcia-cs: cardinfo binary needs to move
into a s eparate package"):
> Constitution 6.3.5:
[...]
I have replied to Branden (CC the Committee list) separately. Please
see my earlier comments about crossposting between debian-policy and
debian-ctte.
Thanks,
I
On Sat, Nov 17, 2001 at 08:01:29PM -0500, Carl Fink wrote:
> Why is SPI so against frequent, less-dramatically-different releases,
> anyway?
SPI has absolutely nothing to do with Debian's release management
practices.
> Note: I'm posting this to Debian-Policy as well as Debian-User, and suggest
On Sat, Nov 17, 2001 at 01:10:30PM -0600, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> Which implies a kernel issue ... if that's the case, you can install
> Adrian Bunk's 2.4 kernel packages for potato (URL in another recent
> thread).
Good deduction, but wrong. I did use Adrian Bunk's much-appreciated
packages to
On Sat, Nov 17, 2001 at 09:15:21PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Nonsense. The Technical Committee should make whatever specific or
> general ruling it sees fit, according to the Constitution.
Constitution 6.3.5:
No detailed design work.
The Technical Committee does not engage in design of ne
I'd appreciate it if people wouldn't send messages which are copied to
*both* the policy list and the technical committee. The committee's
list is not a general discussion list, and needs to be kept low-volume
enough that committee members can have it delivered into their normal
mailboxes, rather
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course you realize that users do not, in general, read the extended
> descriptions of packages.
>
> This isn't your fault, just a bitter lesson I've learned over the past
> few years.
I've learned that too. They also don't read the documentation i
On Sat, Nov 17, 2001 at 12:24:20AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Why are ELF objects so special?
Brian Mays and I have asked the Technical Committee for a ruling. It's
good form to constrain the scope of that ruling as narrowly as is
reasonable.
> If we have a rule like this, why should it not apply
On Sat, Nov 17, 2001 at 12:08:35PM -0500, Brian Mays wrote:
> Of course, good documentation is probably the best way to handle all
> of this. Adding a note in the description that xlibs is needed to run
> cardinfo is probably the most useful thing that can be done for the
> user.
Of course you re
Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd be perfectly happy with a package that wanted some shared library
> only recommending or suggesting that shared library, provided that a
> wrapper script was included for the programs that did not function
> without the shared library to provide a usefu
> "Brian" == Brian Mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brian> My argument is as follows:
Brian> Programs fail to run for all sorts of reasons and often do
Brian> not give friendly error messages, help text, etc. Problems
Brian> are not only caused by missing libraries, but also
> I'd much rather go with the maintainers' judgements than lintian's.
seeing as lintian is a rather stupid perl script and the maintainer isn't this
seems like a good bet (-:
On Sat, Nov 17, 2001 at 09:09:28PM +0900, Taketoshi Sano wrote:
> > 1) Ensure that no program is installed in a state in which it can fail
> > due to missing components, whether they are shared libraries required
> > by the program, missing data, or other programs that are used by the
> > scripts o
I prefer the 2nd position in the following issue.
(BTW, I don't subscribe to debian-policy list currently,
Just read this via newsgroup linux.debian.policy.)
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on Wed, 14 Nov 2001 23:10:11 +0100,
on Re: Bug#119517: pcmcia-cs: cardinfo binary needs to move into a separ
On Sat, Nov 17, 2001 at 12:24:20AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I think both should be forbidden.
> > ELF objects, minor or major, must declare shared library dependencies
> > as Depends.
> > ELF objects, minor or major, that link against non-free shared libraries
> > must
16 matches
Mail list logo
