Re: priorities

On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 05:38:50PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: > > We have: > > required/essential -- stuff that can't be removed: libc, dpkg, etc > > important -- the rest of base, stuff necessary to bootstrap and > > recover a usable and useful system > I have to admi

Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License

Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Perl 6 is already distributed under version 2.0, currently included in > the Parrot package. As are over a hundred Perl 6 modules, currently > included in the Pugs package. We haven't split them out into separate > Debian packages yet, but will in the n

Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License

Russ Allbery wrote: Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Many Perl modules are just licensed "under the same terms as Perl itself", so as soon as Perl is released under this license, we will have several hundreds of packages automagically under it. Of course, this will require updating/ch

Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License

Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Many Perl modules are just licensed "under the same terms as Perl > itself", so as soon as Perl is released under this license, we will have > several hundreds of packages automagically under it. > Of course, this will require updating/changing many of th

Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License

Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Russ Allbery wrote: >> Licenses are included in common-licenses primarily on the basis of how >> commonly they're used in the archive. Currently, there are only about >> five packages in the archive covered by this license, so I don't >> believe this i

Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License

Russ Allbery dijo [Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 10:16:13AM -0800]: > >> I'd like to request the addition of the file: > >> > >> > >> > >> as "Artistic-2" in /usr/share/common-licenses/. > > Licenses are included in common-licenses primari

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

Joerg Jaspert wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Severity: normal > > Hi > > I think policy should include some words on the usage of Mailinglists as > a Maintainer: address. The current "3.3 The maintainer of a package" > reads > Additionally I would like: > > +++---+++ > If the Maintainer: fie

Adobe Akrobat Pro 8 for MAC\XP\Vista 79, Retails @ 599 (u save 520)

mindjet mindmanager 7 for mac - 39 adobe dreamweaver cs3 - 59 steinberg cubase sx 2.2.0.33 - 39 luxology modo 301 for mac - 129 corel wordperfect office standard edition 12 - 49 type > igoemb. com < in Internet Exp|orer ibm lotus smartsuite millenium edition release 9.8 - 39 cadlink signlab vinyl

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

On 11259 March 1977, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Wed, 09 Jan 2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote: >> ---+++--- >> If the Maintainer address points to a mailing list then that list must >> be configured to accept mail from those role accounts in Debian used to >> send automated mails regarding the package. T

Bug#250202: "debian/README.source" file for packages with non-trivial source

On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 12:36:07PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Jörg Sommer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The rest looks good and I agree that such a source is useful, but it > > should also be allowed to refer to a central document like > > /u/s/d/dpatch/README.source. I expect that many README.

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > I propose to add, someone please fix up en_GANNEFF: > > ---+++--- > If the Maintainer address points to a mailing list then that list must > be configured to accept mail from those role accounts in Debian used to > send automated mails regarding the pack

Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License

Russ Allbery wrote: Licenses are included in common-licenses primarily on the basis of how commonly they're used in the archive. Currently, there are only about five packages in the archive covered by this license, so I don't believe this is warranted at this time. Basically, the license isn't

Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list

Package: debian-policy Severity: normal Hi I think policy should include some words on the usage of Mailinglists as a Maintainer: address. The current "3.3 The maintainer of a package" reads ------ Every package must have a Debian maintainer (the maintainer may be one person or a group of pe