Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.7.2.1
Severity: minor
Tags: patch
Hi,
I checked the policy for spelling mistakes and made the use
of 'behavior' and 'debianised' consistent.
Patch is attached.
Kind regards
Nico
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
APT
On 26 Jun 2006, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Frank Küster writes ("Re: Bug#375502: debian-policy must clarify how
> sub-policies should be managed"):
>> For a document called "Debian-Foo-Policy" to be part of The Debian
>> Policy it must be included in 1.4. If it is not included there, it
>> is not manda
On 20 Jun 2006, Frank Küster verbalised:
> Indeed. If we take "space savings" as the main argument to include
> a license in common-licenses, then the GFDL should be in there. On
> the other hand, if we connect a statement to the inclusion, like
> "this is a license that Debian likes", we should
Manoj,
can you please comment on that?
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> George Danchev writes ("Bug#375502: debian-policy must clarify how
> sub-policies should be managed"):
>> If there is no `official policy process' then what justifies the presence of
>> policy-process.sgml and /usr
George Danchev writes ("Bug#375502: debian-policy must clarify how sub-policies
should be managed"):
> If there is no `official policy process' then what justifies the presence of
> policy-process.sgml and /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/policy-process.*
> respectively ?
I assume this is an overs
On Tuesday 27 June 2006 13:46, Frank Küster wrote:
--cut--
> > Why do you think "are all normative and authoritative", is not correct,
> > if sub-policies are part of debian-policy or referenced to by the above
> > mentioned 1.4 debian-policy paragraph ?
>
> Sorry, I misparsed this sentence, or rat
unsubscribe
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 June 2006 12:19, Frank Küster wrote:
>> George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > The sub-policy documents either can be part of this debian-policy
>> > document or referenced to by this paragraph. They are maintained by their
>> > aut
On Tuesday 27 June 2006 12:19, Frank Küster wrote:
> George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The sub-policy documents either can be part of this debian-policy
> > document or referenced to by this paragraph. They are maintained by their
> > authors and are all normative and authoritative.
>
>
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The sub-policy documents either can be part of this debian-policy document or
> referenced to by this paragraph. They are maintained by their authors and are
> all normative and authoritative.
I don't think the last part, " are all normative and autho
On Tuesday 27 June 2006 10:10, George Danchev wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 June 2006 01:43, Chris Waters wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 06:05:17PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > > What you tend to disagree with ? I'm asking for clarification how
> > > sub-policies must be handled, and this must be
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 08:42:06AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2006, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> > Or better yet, instead of duplicating such code in each and every
> > daemon, as already done for fork/exec, detach from terminal, cleanup
> > filedescriptors, setsid(), write
On Tuesday 27 June 2006 01:43, Chris Waters wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 06:05:17PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > What you tend to disagree with ? I'm asking for clarification how
> > sub-policies must be handled, and this must be stipulated by the
> > debian-policy.
>
> Why must it be stipu
13 matches
Mail list logo
