Bug#117916: marked as done ([PROPOSED] Mandate http servers to provide httpd-cgi as relevenat)

Your message dated Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:47:06 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#117916: fixed in debian-policy 3.7.0.0 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 is

Bug#341232: marked as done (8.6.4. Providing a `shlibs' file: s/should create/must provide/)

Your message dated Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:47:06 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#341232: fixed in debian-policy 3.7.0.0 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 is

Bug#32263: marked as done ([PENDING AMENDMENT 20/01/2000] Splitting cgi-bin)

Your message dated Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:47:06 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#32263: fixed in debian-policy 3.7.0.0 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 is n

Bug#362247: marked as done (no longer current regarding X font paths)

Your message dated Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:47:06 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#362247: fixed in debian-policy 3.7.0.0 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 is

Bug#361137: marked as done ([AMENDMENT 06/04/2006] Make use of invoke-rc.d, if available, mandatory)

Your message dated Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:47:06 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#361137: fixed in debian-policy 3.7.0.0 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 is

Bug#230217: marked as done (debian-policy: [PROPOSAL] Should update to Filesystem Hierarchy Standard FHS 2.3)

Your message dated Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:47:06 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#344158: fixed in debian-policy 3.7.0.0 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 is

Bug#349775: marked as done (debian-policy: Refers to upgrading-checklist.txt instead of upgrading-checklist.txt.gz)

Your message dated Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:47:06 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#349775: fixed in debian-policy 3.7.0.0 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 is

Bug#349010: marked as done (debian-policy: Chapter 6 - Package maintainer scripts: redundant info about exit status)

Your message dated Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:47:06 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#349010: fixed in debian-policy 3.7.0.0 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 is

Bug#346598: marked as done (init script stop example should use --oknodo)

Your message dated Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:47:06 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#346598: fixed in debian-policy 3.7.0.0 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 is

Bug#212434: marked as done ([PROPOSED] recommend FHS 2.2 rather than 2.1)

Your message dated Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:47:06 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#230217: fixed in debian-policy 3.7.0.0 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 is

Bug#357613: marked as done (debian-policy: Conflicting Architecture definitions)

Your message dated Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:47:06 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#357613: fixed in debian-policy 3.7.0.0 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 is

Bug#212434: marked as done ([PROPOSED] recommend FHS 2.2 rather than 2.1)

Your message dated Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:47:06 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#344158: fixed in debian-policy 3.7.0.0 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 is

Bug#344158: marked as done (The FHS is from 2000 and should be updated)

Your message dated Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:47:06 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#344158: fixed in debian-policy 3.7.0.0 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 is

Bug#359817: marked as done (debian-policy: dpkg-gencontrol now uses -isp by default)

Your message dated Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:47:06 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#359817: fixed in debian-policy 3.7.0.0 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 is

Bug#230217: marked as done (debian-policy: [PROPOSAL] Should update to Filesystem Hierarchy Standard FHS 2.3)

Your message dated Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:47:06 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#230217: fixed in debian-policy 3.7.0.0 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 is

Bug#344158: marked as done (The FHS is from 2000 and should be updated)

Your message dated Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:47:06 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#212434: fixed in debian-policy 3.7.0.0 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 is

Bug#230217: marked as done (debian-policy: [PROPOSAL] Should update to Filesystem Hierarchy Standard FHS 2.3)

Your message dated Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:47:06 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#212434: fixed in debian-policy 3.7.0.0 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 is

Bug#212434: marked as done ([PROPOSED] recommend FHS 2.2 rather than 2.1)

Your message dated Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:47:06 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#212434: fixed in debian-policy 3.7.0.0 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 is

Bug#355263: marked as done (policy 12.5: Please recommend a sane practice WRT different gpl versions (was: Re: RFC/RFS: beef - a flexible BrainFuck interpreter))

Your message dated Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:47:06 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#355263: fixed in debian-policy 3.7.0.0 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 is

Bug#199849: marked as done ([PROPOSAL] unclear recommendation for debconf w/ dpkg-statoverride)

Your message dated Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:47:06 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#199849: fixed in debian-policy 3.7.0.0 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 is

Bug#148194: marked as done ([AMENDMENT 11/04/2006] Permit multi-line fields in debian/control)

Your message dated Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:47:06 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#148194: fixed in debian-policy 3.7.0.0 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 is

Bug#362975: marked as done (debian-policy: please prohibit circular dependencies, or mention that dependencies won't be respected during prerm remove)

Your message dated Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:47:06 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#362975: fixed in debian-policy 3.7.0.0 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 is

Bug#190753: marked as done ([AMENDMENT 12/04/2004] frown on programs in PATH with language extentions)

Your message dated Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:47:06 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#190753: fixed in debian-policy 3.7.0.0 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 is

Bug#342611: marked as done (debian-policy: please support Watch file as recommendation)

Your message dated Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:47:06 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#342611: fixed in debian-policy 3.7.0.0 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 is

Bug#344158: marked as done (The FHS is from 2000 and should be updated)

Your message dated Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:47:06 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#230217: fixed in debian-policy 3.7.0.0 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 is

Changes to archive debian-policy--devel--3.7--patch-4

Revision: debian-policy--devel--3.7--patch-4 Archive: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creator: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed Apr 26 00:22:34 CDT 2006 Standard-date: 2006-04-26 05:22:34 GMT New-files: .arch-ids/fhs.desc.id fhs.desc Removed-files: .arch-ids/FSSTND-FAQ.id .arch-ids/fhs-2.0.tar.

debian-policy_3.7.0.0_i386.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: debian-policy_3.7.0.0.dsc to pool/main/d/debian-policy/debian-policy_3.7.0.0.dsc debian-policy_3.7.0.0.tar.gz to pool/main/d/debian-policy/debian-policy_3.7.0.0.tar.gz debian-policy_3.7.0.0_all.deb to pool/main/d/debian-policy/debian-policy_3.7.0.0_all.deb Announcing to debian-deve

Changes to archive debian-policy--devel--3.7--patch-3

Revision: debian-policy--devel--3.7--patch-3 Archive: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creator: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed Apr 26 00:16:13 CDT 2006 Standard-date: 2006-04-26 05:16:13 GMT New-files: debian/stamp/.arch-ids/=id New-directories: debian/stamp Removed-files: debian/stamp/.arch-ids/=

Changes to archive debian-policy--devel--3.7--patch-2

Revision: debian-policy--devel--3.7--patch-2 Archive: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creator: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed Apr 26 00:10:13 CDT 2006 Standard-date: 2006-04-26 05:10:13 GMT Modified-files: ChangeLog policy.sgml New-patches: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/debian-policy--devel--3.7--patch-2

Processing of debian-policy_3.7.0.0_i386.changes

debian-policy_3.7.0.0_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: debian-policy_3.7.0.0.dsc debian-policy_3.7.0.0.tar.gz debian-policy_3.7.0.0_all.deb Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "un

Processed: Creating alternatives for keyword programs is not really policy

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > reassign 363486 general Bug#363486: dpkg: [update-alternatives] New categories for: WORD, EXCEL, MEDIA-PLAYER etc. Bug reassigned from package `debian-policy' to `general'. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance.

Bug#346152: marked as done (debian-policy: mp3-encoder and mp3-decoder virtual packages.)

Your message dated Tue, 25 Apr 2006 17:20:57 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line mp3-decoder 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 is now your responsibility to reop

Processed: This is under discussion

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > severity 338219 wishlist Bug#338219: could section 8.1 mandate what library directories will be searched by ldconfig, rather than just describing what they currently are Severity set to `wishlist'. > retitle 338219 [Discussion] could section 8.1 manda

Changes to archive debian-policy--devel--3.7--patch-1

Revision: debian-policy--devel--3.7--patch-1 Archive: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creator: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue Apr 25 13:03:59 CDT 2006 Standard-date: 2006-04-25 18:03:59 GMT New-patches: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/debian-policy--devel--3.7--patch-1 [EMAIL PROTECTED]/debian-policy--deve

Changes to archive [EMAIL PROTECTED]/debian-policy--devel

New versions created in [EMAIL PROTECTED]/debian-policy--devel debian-policy--devel--3.7 regards, "baz mail-new-versions" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#304106: marked as done (Policy for devfs support)

Your message dated Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:08:09 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Devfs is dead 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 is now your responsibility to re

Processed: Re: Bug#329762: Relaxation and documentation of the "-fPIC" constraint

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > severity 329762 wishlist Bug#329762: Relaxation and documentation of the "-fPIC" constraint Severity set to `wishlist'. > retitle 329762 [DISCUSS] documentation of the "-fPIC" constraint Bug#329762: Relaxation and documentation of the "-fPIC" constrai

Bug#329762: Relaxation and documentation of the "-fPIC" constraint

severity 329762 wishlist retitle 329762 [DISCUSS] documentation of the "-fPIC" constraint thanks Hi, This discussion is very incomplete, with large chunks of information missing. Let us see if I have a correct summary: If you are using gcc, -fPIC produces code with relocatable posit

Processed: Umm, this has no patch

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > tags 338219 -patch Bug#338219: could section 8.1 mandate what library directories will be searched by ldconfig, rather than just describing what they currently are Tags were: patch Tags removed: patch > -- Stopping processing here. Please contact me

Bug#338219: could section 8.1 mandate what library directories will be searched

severity 338219 wishlist retitle 338219 [Discussion] could section 8.1 mandate what library directories will be searched thanks Hi, I am not sure I know what set of directories policy must mandate be searched. Does that mean anything else that is added to /etc/ld.so.conf it would be a