On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 19:47:47 +0200, Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi,
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > Lintian, however, complains if the sections .comment or .note are
>> > present, which strip doesn't think are unneeded.
>>
>> Usually, when there is a discrepancy between lintian a
On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 11:59:04AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> You are both missing the point. Init scripts are conffiles
> (with reason). conffiles are not removed when a package is removed,
> only upon purge. When I remove a package with an init script, I do
> not want to be bombar
Hi,
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Lintian, however, complains if the sections .comment or .note are
> > present, which strip doesn't think are unneeded.
>
> Usually, when there is a discrepancy between lintian and
> policy, it is not policy that you change.
>
The question is which makes more
On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 12:09:05PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 19:24:12 +0200, Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
>
> > Section 11.2 says
>
> > strip --strip-unneeded your-lib
>
> > Lintian, however, complains if the sections .comment or .note are
> > pre
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 188731 wishlist
Bug#188731: debian-policy: "strip --strip-unneeded" is insufficient
Severity set to `wishlist'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administra
severity 188731 wishlist
thanks
Hi,
On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 19:24:12 +0200, Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Section 11.2 says
> strip --strip-unneeded your-lib
> Lintian, however, complains if the sections .comment or .note are
> present, which strip doesn't think are unneeded.
On 16 Jul 2003 04:42:18 +0800, Dan Jacobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> "T" == Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
T> Well, it's not exactly frivolous. If we were designing the system
T> from scratch we would probably have the initscripts return a
T> non-zero status on failure to perfor
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 15:31:51 +0200 (CEST), Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> reassign 201883 debian-policy thanks
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
>> Package: base-files Version: 3.0.2 Severity: minor
>>
>> I'd like ZPL (Zope Public License) to be added to t
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # BTS controlling commands.
> severity 201883 wishlist
Bug#201883: base-files: Please include Zope Public License in
/usr/share/common-licenses
Severity set to `wishlist'.
> retitle 201883 [PROPOSAL] Policy should not list common licenses but say when
On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 01:18:20AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > I see no point in including N bloody kilobytes of GFDL in the texinfo and
> > info packages' copyright files when the copyright is very much accessible
> > within the packages' info documentation, to which it only applies after all
# BTS controlling commands.
severity 201883 wishlist
retitle 201883 [PROPOSAL] Policy should not list common licenses but say when a
license is common
thanks
Hi,
from 13.6:
Packages distributed under the UCB BSD license, the Artistic license,
the GNU GPL, and the GNU LGPL should refer t
Hi guys,
firstly, I think it's great that you're tackling this sort of thing. If
there's one thing I hate it's the way software get's installed - even today
I know of no system that get's it just right (and I'm even using Mac OS X
:-).
That said, I have the feeling that you're jumping to the spec
On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 03:31:51PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Please read the base-files FAQ. It's the debian-policy group who
> decides about adding a license to common-licenses, not me.
Sorry, but i filed that bug from people.debian.org which is a woody and has
no FAQ file.
I'll modify this b
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 201883 debian-policy
Bug#201883: base-files: Please include Zope Public License in
/usr/share/common-licenses
Bug reassigned from package `base-files' to `debian-policy'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assis
reassign 201883 debian-policy
thanks
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
> Package: base-files
> Version: 3.0.2
> Severity: minor
>
> I'd like ZPL (Zope Public License) to be added to the list of common
> license in Debian. I think that ZPL is common enough (at least 10
> p
Greetings.
Together with Artur Czechowski, we've created a proposition of possible Debian
Vim Scripts Policy. At the moment Debian introduces only vim-scripts and
vim-latexsuite but we think that problems which have risen during assembly of
vim-latexsuite should be addresed in a form of policy f
16 matches
Mail list logo
