Bug#99324: Please resend your email to TalkingCure.Net

2007-06-26 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Greetings- You recently sent an email to TalkingCure.Net. Please resend this email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks! -Forrest -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#99324: Hi!

2007-06-26 Thread abuse
THIS IS AN AUTO-RESPONSE MESSAGE - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE Please read carefully! This may be the only response we send you. Thank you for writing Meganameservers, Megamailservers and Megawebservers. This address is designated for reporting violations of our Abuse and Spamming Policy.

Re: Bug#392362: [PROPOSAL] Add should not embed code from other packages

2007-06-26 Thread Neil McGovern
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 03:43:14PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > This is one of the things that was discussed at the Policy BoF at DebConf, > and Manoj and I would both like to start adding it. In the future, we'll > be doing so in a new format that allows rationale to be tagged separately > and ma

Re: Bug#392362: [PROPOSAL] Add should not embed code from other packages

2007-06-26 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:30:46PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote: > > I've tried to stay away from compile type language (and to some extent > 'link') as it's not only C* programs that this effects. Right, this is a very good point. For instance, I've think I've found 6 or 7 packages that shipped t

Bug#392362: [PROPOSAL] Add should not embed code from other packages

2007-06-26 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 08:36:51AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Something like: > > Some software packages include in their distribution convenience > copies of libraries from other software packages, generally so that > users compiling from source don't have to download multiple pa

Re: Bug#392362: [PROPOSAL] Add should not embed code from other packages

2007-06-26 Thread Russ Allbery
Neil McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 08:36:51AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Some software packages include in their distribution convenience >> copies of libraries from other software packages, generally so that >> users compiling from source don't have

Re: Bug#392362: [PROPOSAL] Add should not embed code from other packages

2007-06-26 Thread Neil McGovern
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 08:36:51AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Some software packages include in their distribution convenience > copies of libraries from other software packages, generally so that > users compiling from source don't have to download multiple packages. > Debian pac

Bug#392362: [PROPOSAL] Add should not embed code from other packages

2007-06-26 Thread Luk Claes
Bill Allombert wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 01:59:58PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 05:33:53PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > Two comments: > > 1) "this library is already packaged in Debian": > If it is not packaged, it should be packaged instead of using the > conv

Re: Bug#392362: [PROPOSAL] Add should not embed code from other packages

2007-06-26 Thread sean finney
On Tuesday 26 June 2007 18:15:47 Neil McGovern wrote: > Great :) Not sure if these changes need re-seconding now though. well, if there's any possibility that they do, consider them re-seconded :) sean signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Bug#392362: [PROPOSAL] Add should not embed code from other packages

2007-06-26 Thread Russ Allbery
Neil McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > How's this version? (attached) > Neil > -- > * hermanr feels like a hedgehog having sex... > --- policy.sgml 2006-10-11 08:44:02.684306000 +0100 > +++ policy.sgml 2007-06-26 13:58:10.160026885 +0100 > @@ -2105,6 +2105,19 @@ > the f

Bug#99324: E-Mail Address Change

2007-06-26 Thread Rick Boss
Thank you for e-mailing Reptek, Inc.. Due to excessive unsolicited incoming emails, our email address has been changed. If you need to contact us, or would like to place an order, please call: 949-715-5355. Thank you for your continued business, Reptek, Inc. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [

Bug#392362: [PROPOSAL] Add should not embed code from other packages

2007-06-26 Thread Neil McGovern
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 04:54:31PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: Updated :) > 1) "this library is already packaged in Debian": Removed > 2) "Optionally ... should not" seems internally inconsistent. Changed to: > "Preferably,... should not" > But I certainly lift my objection. > Great :) Not s

Bug#392362: [PROPOSAL] Add should not embed code from other packages

2007-06-26 Thread Bill Allombert
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 01:59:58PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 05:33:53PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > Any suggestions for improved wording? > > > --- policy.sgml 2006-10-11 08:44:02.684306000 +0100 > +++ policy.sgml 2007-06-26 13:58:10.160026885 +0100 >

Bug#99324: Gracias

2007-06-26 Thread Adolfo Fagioli
Su mensaje ha sido recibido con éxito le responderemos a la brevedad. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#430649: Please clarify splitting/syntax of DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS

2007-06-26 Thread Loïc Minier
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007, Bill Allombert wrote: > I agree it is important that all debian/rules parse the options the same > way. However "findstring" actually allow both spaces and commas as separator. Sure, but $findstring(debug,nodebug) will match "debug" for example. And it will also match build

Bug#430649: Please clarify splitting/syntax of DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS

2007-06-26 Thread Bill Allombert
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:53:36AM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Version: 3.7.2.2 > Severity: normal > > Hi, > > In the discussions of bug #209008 (parallel building), Peter Samuelson > explained he uses comma-separated keywords in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS. > Please doc

Bug#392362: [PROPOSAL] Add should not embed code from other packages

2007-06-26 Thread Neil McGovern
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 05:33:53PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > Any suggestions for improved wording? > > If this is that what you want, then I will certainly not object, but the > current draft seems to imply something else. Especially the expected > meaning of package does not seems to capt

Bug#430649: Please clarify splitting/syntax of DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS

2007-06-26 Thread Loïc Minier
Package: debian-policy Version: 3.7.2.2 Severity: normal Hi, In the discussions of bug #209008 (parallel building), Peter Samuelson explained he uses comma-separated keywords in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS. Please document how keywords in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS are allowed to be separated. I find