On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 03:42:07PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> > --- a/policy.sgml
> > +++ b/policy.sgml
> > @@ -8062,12 +8062,27 @@
> > http://localhost/doc/package/filename
> >
> >
> >
> > - Mailboxes are generally mode 660
> > - user:mail unless the system
> > - admi
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 03:37:37PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> > index 24c9072..16919b2 100644
> > --- a/policy.sgml
> > +++ b/policy.sgml
> > @@ -293,7 +293,13 @@
> > free in our sense (see the Debian Free Software
> > Guidelines, below), or may
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> + If the architecture-restricted dependency is part of a set of
> + alternatives using |, that branch of the alternative is
> + ignored completely on architectures that do not match the
> + restriction. For example:
> +
Refdoc writes:
> I am asking to figure out what policies you have regarding packaging and
> distributing arbitrary text content:
>
> We (CrossWire Bible Society) produce a programme library and a bunch of
> frontends for Bible study etc. (libsword, gnomesword, bibletime etc)
>
> We also have a hu
I am asking to figure out what policies you have regarding packaging and
distributing arbitrary text content:
We (CrossWire Bible Society) produce a programme library and a bunch of
frontends for Bible study etc. (libsword, gnomesword, bibletime etc)
We also have a huge bunch of e-book modules wi
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 03:37:37PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>
> > I did a bit more research based on Osamu Aoki's excellent work.
> > Currently, these things are referred to using three different terms:
[...]
> As mentioned, I'm not sure we need to match the terminology i
Greetings from this new -policy subscriber!
Russ Allbery wrote:
> @@ -4188,6 +4188,22 @@ Build-Depends-Indep: texinfo
> Build-Depends: kernel-headers-2.2.10 [!hurd-i386],
>hurd-dev [hurd-i386], gnumach-dev [hurd-i386]
>
> + requires kernel-headers-2.2.0 on all architectures
Hi!
On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 15:20:02 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I finally found some time to write new proposed wording for the section in
> Policy on handling architecture-restricted dependencies. Could you review
> this change and be sure that I'm correctly describing the situation? I
> added
8 matches
Mail list logo