On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 09:41:15AM +, Jonathan David Amery wrote:
> I suggest that the following patch be applied to policy in order to
> resolve this issue:
>
> --- policy.sgml.old Fri Nov 15 09:30:47 2002
> +++ policy.sgml Fri Nov 15 09:36:16 2002
> @@ -6982,9 +6982,12 @@
>
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> clone 171221 -1
Bug#171221: openmotif: openmotif is not a native package
Bug 171221 cloned as bug 171888.
> reassign -1 openmotif
Bug#171888: openmotif: openmotif is not a native package
Bug reassigned from package `debian-policy' to `openmotif'.
> se
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 11:57:17AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Dec 2002, Michael Lamertz wrote:
> > Oh dammit, do we really have to enter these dark lands...
>
> Apparently. Let me get my scuba suit, and a harpoon...
>:->
> That _is_ the "bad" reputation Debian has
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 11:36:16PM +0100, Michael Lamertz wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 01:11:56PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Don't .packlist files get added to if another module is installed in the
> > same subdirectory? It's been a while since I looked at them, but that
> > would make it inco
On Thu, 05 Dec 2002, Michael Lamertz wrote:
> Oh dammit, do we really have to enter these dark lands...
Apparently. Let me get my scuba suit, and a harpoon...
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 09:49:17PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > the module which works perfectly well on, ... well,
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 12:56:02AM +0100, Michael Lamertz wrote:
> I'm not questioning that the package breaks Debian policy. What I *AM*
> questioning is Debian's decision to define such a rule in the first
> place. That policy has been made in ignorance of - or without knowing -
> why the .pack
6 matches
Mail list logo
