On Wed, 2003-01-15 at 06:15, Colin Watson wrote:
> I think this ought to be a reminder that taking a Debian-specific
> approach to this and reckoning that we can probably "get a fair number
> of upstreams to go along with it" is a mistake. If there isn't a
> widely-accepted standard, we will just
>On Tue, 2003-01-14 at 21:50, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> And? A POSIX filename is not a string of characters, it's a string
>> of bytes. You have no technical need to differentiate between the
>> two.
>
>If you do any sort of character-oriented manipulation on those names,
>you will.
Like what
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 03:54:03PM +0100, Roland Mas wrote:
> Adrian Bunk (2003-01-13 12:00:31 +0100) :
>
> > I'm therefore suggesting that you change your policy to something like:
> >
> > <-- snip -->
> >
> > ...
> > 2.3.9.1. Prompting in maintainer scripts
> >
On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 02:14:19PM -0800, Ron wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 11:21:55AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Declaring "Architecture: i386" because you haven't guaranteed yourself
> > that it will build is wrong, and Debian porters have been fighting
> > against this for years.
>
> Ple
On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 11:21:55AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> This is an incorrect assumption. If the package does not build on other
> architectures, then it will *not* be kept out of testing. That will only
> happen if it built once on some architecture and then stops being
> buildable.
Ok, th
On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 10:58:03AM -0500, Bob Hilliard wrote:
> "Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I think splitting out a -doc is always good if it's more than, say, 10%
> > of the pkgs installed size.
> I agree with the concept, but I think 20% would be
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Colin Watson wrote:
> This is an incorrect assumption. If the package does not build on other
> architectures, then it will *not* be kept out of testing. That will only
> happen if it built once on some architecture and then stops being
> buildable.
>
> Declaring "Architecture
"Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2003-01-15 at 02:54, Adam Heath wrote:
>> In doing this, I found several packages that had large quantities of
>> documentation in a non-doc type package. This meant that all installs of
>> said
>> package had that docu
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 07:54:58PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> In doing this, I found several packages that had large quantities of
> documentation in a non-doc type package. This meant that all installs of
> said package had that documentation around.
How large? It can be filed as a bug on the ba
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 07:54:58PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> Additionally, we are all aware(I hope) about the naming
> inconsistencies. Some call it -doc, some call it -docs. Then, some
> place the documentation in -doc/, while others place it in foo/. Still
> others place it i
On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 01:17:51AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-01-14 at 21:50, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Are you volunteering to write patches for every program in Debian, and
> > maintain them (since the upstream author probably won't be interested
> > in this Debian-only scheme)
On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 04:41:57PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > > Not all of the statements made in that thread are not quite true,
> > > and I seem to remember seeing some hacks done by Ukai-san on that
> > > respect, for UTF-8.
> >
> > Hmmm...could you elaborate?
>
> I think our man-db and
On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 04:43:36AM -0500, Steven G. Johnson wrote:
> I'm cc'ing this to debian-policy, because the issue in the subject line
> seems like an important general question.
>
> To summarize (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=176627): I
> reported a bug for mingw32 (a Lin
On Wed, 2003-01-15 at 02:54, Adam Heath wrote:
> In doing this, I found several packages that had large quantities of
> documentation in a non-doc type package. This meant that all installs of said
> package had that documentation around.
I think splitting out a -doc is always good if it's more t
I'm cc'ing this to debian-policy, because the issue in the subject line
seems like an important general question.
To summarize (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=176627): I
reported a bug for mingw32 (a Linux->Windows cross-compiler) because the
developer had declared it architectur
On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 12:28:43PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > > But the current situation is *already* broken! For example, for a
> > > Chinese person, an ISO-8859-1 system simply cannot encode, nor display,
> > > their language. I am aware that for people entrenched in legacy
> > > charset
> > Not all of the statements made in that thread are not quite true,
> > and I seem to remember seeing some hacks done by Ukai-san on that
> > respect, for UTF-8.
>
> Hmmm...could you elaborate?
I think our man-db and groff have been hacked in two ways:
1) to special-case japanese locale (ja_J
On Tue, 2003-01-14 at 21:50, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> And? A POSIX filename is not a string of characters, it's a string
> of bytes. You have no technical need to differentiate between the
> two.
If you do any sort of character-oriented manipulation on those names,
you will.
> Good. It remind
18 matches
Mail list logo
