New additions to the policy editors set

Hi folks, We have a couple of volunteers for the policy editors set (we need more people on that list, to work through the backlog and alleviate them in the future when any one of us is busy). Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, and Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> have graci

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:53:35PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > Er, um, oops. :) Thank you for spotting that. > --- policy.sgml.orig 2002-11-12 12:50:40.0 + > +++ policy.sgml 2002-11-12 12:51:30.0 + > @@ -7485,22 +7485,22 @@ > page included as well. >

Re: Bug#168761: Documentation is quite messy.

I really don't know why i insisted with debconf-devel(8) while it is in section 7, but... On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 02:12:33PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > This is because the text data-type is kind of unused and ill-supported > and deprecated. I have added a mention of it anyway. > > The debconf spec

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

[repost, in case the seconds should be signed. they probably should. if so, stating that somewhere in the developer corner would be great. or did I miss something?] hi, On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:53:35PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > --- policy.sgml.orig 2002-11-12 12:50:40.0 + > +++

Re: Bug#168761: Documentation is quite messy.

Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote: > Debconf documentation is quite messy, or not moslty clear. I'll give you some > examples of inconsistency i've foung between debconf_specification and > debconf-devel(8) > > * debconf_specification lists type `text' as available while debconf-devel > does

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:27:50PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:53:35PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > > + There should be a manual page at least for every program. If > > + no manual page is available, this is considered as a bug and > > + should be reported to

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:33:06PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > The reason why I'm supporting this proposal is because I find the > symlinks to undocumented(7) technically less than ideal in a number of > ways. [...] > Indeed it is useful to have better-than-nothing documentation for > newbies, so

Bug#120585: apparently what lintian does is valid, ldconfig use outside $1=configure is not documented as safe

On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 11:02:42PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Josip> The Policy says that "the `postinst' script may optionally > Josip> invoke `ldconfig' at other times". According to the > Josip> explanation in the footnote number 3, there doesn't appear to > Josip> be any other time (o

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

I second the proposal in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. -- G. Branden Robinson|You can have my PGP passphrase when Debian GNU/Linux |you pry it from my cold, dead [EMAIL PROTECTED] |brain. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Adam Thornton

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:53:35PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > + There should be a manual page at least for every program. If > + no manual page is available, this is considered as a bug and > + should be reported to the Debian Bug Tracking System (the > + maintainer of th

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Colin Watson wrote: > --- policy.sgml.orig 2002-11-12 12:50:40.0 + > +++ policy.sgml 2002-11-12 12:51:30.0 + > @@ -7485,22 +7485,22 @@ > page included as well. > > > - > - If no manual page is available for a particula

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I second the diff in: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=39830&msg=108 - -- James -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.6 iEYEAREC

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

hi, On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:53:35PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > --- policy.sgml.orig 2002-11-12 12:50:40.0 + > +++ policy.sgml 2002-11-12 12:51:30.0 + > @@ -7485,22 +7485,22 @@ > page included as well. > > > - > - If no manual page is

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 01:46:16PM +0100, Othmar Pasteka wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:12:09PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:58:55PM +0100, Othmar Pasteka wrote: > > > you probably edited the wrong document, this should be should :). > > > or did I miss something?

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

hi, On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:12:09PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:58:55PM +0100, Othmar Pasteka wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 04:26:02PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > > > --- policy.sgml.orig 2002-10-30 16:13:24.0 + > > > +++ policy.sgml 2002-10-

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:58:55PM +0100, Othmar Pasteka wrote: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 04:26:02PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > > --- policy.sgml.orig2002-10-30 16:13:24.0 + > > +++ policy.sgml 2002-10-30 16:14:13.0 + > > @@ -7476,22 +7476,22 @@ > [snip] > > +

Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

hi, On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 04:26:02PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > --- policy.sgml.orig 2002-10-30 16:13:24.0 + > +++ policy.sgml 2002-10-30 16:14:13.0 + > @@ -7476,22 +7476,22 @@ [snip] > + There must be a manual page at least for every program. If

Re: Bug#167422: files in /usr/share should be world-readable

On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 08:10:02PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > You can decide not to log for _your_ package. I certainly am > going to continue to log the compilation for mine. Well, will you consider placing them in a more FHS-friendly location than /usr/share? :) -- G. Branden Rob