Re: Bug#122996 dict-client and dict-server virtual package name

>>"Bob" == Bob Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Bob> dict-client has been added to the list of virtual packages, but Bob> dict-server has not. Is this previous correspondence sufficient to Bob> support a request that dict-server be added, or is it necessary to Bob> file a new bug, re

CVS srivasta: Added dict server

CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy Module name:debian-policy Changes by: srivastaFri Sep 6 21:46:58 MDT 2002 Modified files: . : virtual-package-names-list.txt Log message: Added dict server

Re: Policy Process (was: Bug #89867: Where to place web-accessible images)

>>"Matthew" == Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Matthew> On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Matthew> Based on the proposal's use of http://localhost/, or some Matthew> other criteria? >> >> Right now, if I arrange for images to be referenced in >> /var/www/, they are acce

Re: [RFC] *-rc.d -> rc.d-* transition

Hi, Sounds right to me. manoj -- "Remember, extremism in the nondefense of moderation is not a virtue." Peter Neumann, about usenet Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E

[RFC] *-rc.d -> rc.d-* transition

As it was talked in Debconf2, we would be better off if we renamed all *-rc.d utilities (invoke-rc.d, policy-rc.d, update-rc.d) to rc.d-* (rc.d-invoke, rc.d-policy, rc.d-update). Transition plan: 1a. Rename all scripts to their new names, add compatibility symlinks to the sysvinit and file-rc

Bug#122996 dict-client and dict-server virtual package name

On 09 Jan 2002, I posted the following message: > To: debian-policy@lists.debian.org > Subject: dict-client virtual package name > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: Bob Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 09 Jan 2002 11:27:50 -0500 > > On 08

Re: Processed: reassigning back...

>>"Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Wichert> Policy still documents a relation that is not ready for use yet and Wichert> has never been announced as such by the people implementing it (ie Wichert> the dpkg developers). Oh, my. What a dpkg centric view. Policy i

Bug#159744: marked as done (dpkg-source: still complains about Enhances fields)

Your message dated Fri, 06 Sep 2002 03:51:32 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line reassigning back... has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility

Processed: Re: Processed: reassigning back...

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > reassign 159744 debian-policy Bug#159744: dpkg-source: still complains about Enhances fields Bug reassigned from package `dpkg-dev' to `debian-policy'. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking s

Re: Processed: reassigning back...

reassign 159744 debian-policy thanks Folks, please get a consensus and stop this stupid reassigning and closing/reopening. The bug was cloned and one of the clones is assigned to dpkg-dev already, so reassigning this one does not make sense at all. Policy still documents a relation that is not re

Processed: reassigning back...

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > reopen 159744 Bug#159744: dpkg-source: still complains about Enhances fields Bug reopened, originator not changed. > reassign 159744 dpkg-dev Bug#159744: dpkg-source: still complains about Enhances fields Bug reassigned from package `debian-policy' to

Bug#159744: reassigning back...

reopen 159744 reassign 159744 dpkg-dev thanks Manoj wrote: > This is still not a policy bug. The policy mentions a field > that is useful in its own right, even if the tools have not yet been > enhanced to recognize it. So the tools do not know all that policy > fields that exist. They shall in ti