On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 03:37:41PM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> > Not using debconf. That's all that sentence means as I read it: the
> > phrase is just there for emphasis.
>
> Oh, I get it. The sentence is trying to say, "you can prompt the user
> directly or through debconf". I wonder why it d
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 11:05:36PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 02:43:45PM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> > Can you give me an example of "not by hand"?
> Not using debconf. That's all that sentence means as I read it: the
> phrase is just there for emphasis.
Oh, I get it.
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 02:43:45PM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 09:27:04PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > So, let me try one more time. When you say "what do you think it's
> > trying to say", what do you think you're trying to say?
>
> I'm trying to say that I think it's *
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 09:27:04PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> So, let me try one more time. When you say "what do you think it's
> trying to say", what do you think you're trying to say?
I'm trying to say that I think it's *too* ambiguous. Where do you
draw the line between what is "by hand" a
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reopen 182916
Bug#182916: adding GFDL license and license manpages to base-files
Bug#79538: Include FDL in common-licenses
Bug#172010: licenses: documentation license should be included
Bug#173737: GNU Free Documentation License should be added to commo
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 11:51:54AM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> So, let me try one more time. When policy says, "you can prompt by
> hand or with debconf", what do you think it's trying to say?...
So, let me try one more time. When you say "what do you think it's
trying to say", what do you think
I'd also like to apologize for making a mountain out of a molehill,
and worst of all, exaggerating-for-effect, which I *know* is always
easy to misinterpret. I would like to assure *anyone* who thought I
was taking pot-shots at Manoj that nothing was further from my mind.
As for the underlying i
reopen 182916
thanks
Manoj didn't notice that there are five bugs merged with the one he was
closing.
That isn't to say that the situation changes for GFDL in common-licenses,
we're still waiting for some actually compelling reason to put it there.
It's merely easier to keep the bugs open and ke
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 08:34:37AM +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> To use an example, what fields are in a debian/control file? What must
> be there and what is optional and what do they all mean?
>
> Maybe it's B3 of debian policy? Nope, that's out of date. C.2.2 has the
> same problem. There is
Hi Folks,
I owe you all an apology for my outburst in the last email. I
also owe a specific apology to Chris Waters, for injecting ad
hominem attacks in an otherwise sane discussion.
manoj
--
Give me the avowed, the erect, the manly foe, Bold I can meet --
perhaps may turn his
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy
Module name:debian-policy
Changes by: srivastaFri Mar 21 13:32:14 MST 2003
Modified files:
. : policy.sgml
Log message:
Amended the section about Prompting in maintainer scripts. Added a
footnotre (quoting from the jargo
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy
Module name:debian-policy
Changes by: srivastaFri Mar 21 13:32:18 MST 2003
Modified files:
debian : changelog
Log message:
Amended the section about Prompting in maintainer scripts. Added a
footnotre (quoting from the jargon
>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:51:54 -0800,
>> Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> by hand
>>
>> 1. Said of an operation (especially a repetitive, trivial,
>> and/or tedious one) that ought to be performed automatically by
>> the computer, but which a hacker instead has to step tediously
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 01:14:55PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:02:20 -0800,
> >> Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Why don't you tell me what it *does* mean (or what you think it's
> > supposed to mean), and I'll see if I can come up with some decent
> >
ok on the GFDL, not agreeing on the man page for the GPL, which should
be included in the base files.
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> Hi,
>
> My stance has been that in order to be classified as common,
> a license ought to be actually common -- say, a rule of thumb: be at
> least used in 5%
>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:02:20 -0800,
>> Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 11:55:52AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Firstly, this is not broad enough, saying that communicating to
>> the user by hand encompoassed all possible means of communicating,
> No,
>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:42:50 +0100,
>> Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> ok on the GFDL, not agreeing on the man page for the GPL, which
> should be included in the base files.
That is not a policy issue -- only common license issues are
delegated to the policy group; havi
(Wish I'd seen this before I replied to the last message; I could have
written a more succinct, all-in-one response. Oh well.)
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 11:47:54AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> This is not an adequate replacement for "by hand". What if I
> pop up an dialog box on detecti
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy
Module name:debian-policy
Changes by: srivastaFri Mar 21 12:23:13 MST 2003
Modified files:
. : upgrading-checklist.html
Log message:
Fixed a typo
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 11:55:52AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Firstly, this is not broad enough, saying that communicating
> to the user by hand encompoassed all possible means of communicating,
No, it's simply technically meaningless. To me, "by hand" implies,
"without the use of a
>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:44:27 +0100,
>> Jochen Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I don't have bug numbers, but I guess this includes most serious
> bugs filed with the reportbug tool. From the /usr/bin/reportbug
> source:
This seems to suggest to me that reportbug should be changed
Your message dated Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:35:45 -0600
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#182916: adding GFDL license and license manpages to
base-files
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If th
Your message dated Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:58:04 -0600
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#184521: 2.4.3 exaggeration of bad Makefile edits
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 c
>> On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 02:06:20 -0800,
>> Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 05:12:12PM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Chris Waters wrote:
>> > On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 02:06:05PM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> --- policy.sgml~ 2003
>> On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 23:54:49 +0100,
>> Jakob Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
heading> Prompting in maintainer scripts
p>
>Package maintainer scripts may prompt the user if
> - necessary. Prompting may be accomplished by hand, or by
> - communicating with a program, such as
>
Your message dated Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:35:45 -0600
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#182916: adding GFDL license and license manpages to
base-files
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If th
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy
Module name:debian-policy
Changes by: srivastaFri Mar 21 10:44:14 MST 2003
Modified files:
debian : changelog
Log message:
Inserted the word only in the package name section. closes: Bug#184368
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy
Module name:debian-policy
Changes by: srivastaFri Mar 21 10:44:10 MST 2003
Modified files:
. : policy.sgml
Log message:
Inserted the word only in the package name section. closes: Bug#184368
Your message dated Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:53:46 -0600
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#183572: debian-policy: Documents are not useful from a
practical standpoint
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been deal
Your message dated Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:45:05 -0600
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#177523: debian-policy: mom says: no wasteful trailing
whitespace in logfiles, etc.
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has be
Your message dated Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:03:23 -0600
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#171221: openmotif is not a native package
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
Hi,
This is not a policy issue. Policy ought to be minimal set of
rules (and document current practice). If you can convince the
developers reference folks that this is good practice, perhaps it
belongs there.
manoj
--
"I wonder", he said to himself, "what's in a book while i
Hi,
This is not a policy issue. Policy, and dpkg documentation,
defines what is or is not a debian native package. Whether or not a
package is native or not is left to the discretion of the
developer -- and common sense. At best, this is a bug in the
specific package you are finding fa
Your message dated Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:35:45 -0600
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#182916: adding GFDL license and license manpages to
base-files
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If th
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy
Module name:debian-policy
Changes by: srivastaFri Mar 21 10:10:18 MST 2003
Modified files:
debian : changelog
Log message:
Fixed reference to the debconf URL (we can change the url as it
changes again, and I don't think any a
Hi,
My stance has been that in order to be classified as common,
a license ought to be actually common -- say, a rule of thumb: be at
least used in 5% of the packages.
The rationale behind adding licenses to the common-licenses
category is to prevent excessive duplication of th
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy
Module name:debian-policy
Changes by: srivastaFri Mar 21 10:10:14 MST 2003
Modified files:
. : policy.sgml
Log message:
Fixed reference to the debconf URL (we can change the url as it
changes again, and I don't think any
Your message dated Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:35:45 -0600
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#182916: adding GFDL license and license manpages to
base-files
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If th
Your message dated Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:35:45 -0600
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#182916: adding GFDL license and license manpages to
base-files
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If th
Your message dated Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:03:58 -0600
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#185364: debian-policy: project url's should be required
for each apt-cache package description
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the pr
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy
Module name:debian-policy
Changes by: srivastaFri Mar 21 09:27:45 MST 2003
Modified files:
debian : changelog
Log message:
Add 40 points, not 20, when the window manager is compliant with "The
Window Manager Specification Pro
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy
Module name:debian-policy
Changes by: srivastaFri Mar 21 09:27:41 MST 2003
Modified files:
. : policy.sgml upgrading-checklist.html
Log message:
Add 40 points, not 20, when the window manager is compliant with "The
Windo
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy
Module name:debian-policy
Changes by: srivastaFri Mar 21 09:11:21 MST 2003
Modified files:
debian : changelog
Log message:
Clarify x-terminal-emulator virtual package eligibility, in an
extention to an informative footnote.
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy
Module name:debian-policy
Changes by: srivastaFri Mar 21 09:11:16 MST 2003
Modified files:
. : policy.sgml
Log message:
Clarify x-terminal-emulator virtual package eligibility, in an
extention to an informative footnote.
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 03:42:13PM +0100, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
[...]
Sorry, I meant to send that mail to -python, but i used the wrong alias :P
ciao,
--
Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis | Elegant or ugly code as well
aliases: Luca ^De [A-Z][-A-Za-z]*[iy]'?s$ | as fi
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 01:23:14PM +, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > Does anything other than Lintian (and perhaps Linda) need updating in order
> > to accomodate for changes in the numbers of Policy sections?
> [...]
>
> upgrading-checklist?
Yeah, but I can commit updates to that at the same tim
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 11:02:01AM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
> I suspect that the most correct thing is to change Zope such
> that it expects it in an FHS-compatible place. For extra points, you
> should change it such that it is configurable at compile-time.
I decided to make some (really si
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've spent a few hours rewriting the Policy Manual to merge in the field
> stuff from the Packaging Manual, and to crossreference the whole thing
> properly. In the process I moved a lot of stuff around, and also changed
> some sect to chapts, sect1s to sect
Hello,
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 09:59:17AM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 07:05:31PM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:
> > >Does anything other than Lintian (and perhaps Linda) need updating in order
> > >to accomodate for changes in the numbers of Policy sections?
> >
> > Many seri
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 11:10:58PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Why? because they support building packages as root when
> dh_testroot can solve a lot of headache ?
What does dh_testroot solve in the clean target? Seriously.
I've never understood why people put it in.
Richard Braakman
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 07:05:31PM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:
> >Does anything other than Lintian (and perhaps Linda) need updating in order
> >to accomodate for changes in the numbers of Policy sections?
>
> Many serious bugs mention the policy section being violated...
Which?
> You should als
Colin Watson wrote:
> I object. It's a waste of considerable effort to go around adding "This
> package has no upstream URL" to several thousand packages. I think we've
> already informally agreed that having upstream URLs in package
> descriptions [1] where packages.debian.org can see them is a go
52 matches
Mail list logo
