On Mon, Oct 05 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Don Armstrong writes:
>
>> Changing policy without rough consensus would require a CTTE decision on
>> the matter. Since Russ and Manoj have both laid out their objections to
>> changing policy by removing the should directive, I don't believe there
>> i
On Mon, Oct 05 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Charles Plessy writes:
>
>> There is no consensus for the change, but I would like to underline
>> that the directive itself is not consensusual, as some other
>> developpers supported me in the thread on debian-devel. I think that
>> this is a strong in
Le Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 07:36:48PM -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
>
> Perhaps it'd be useful for continued discussion if specific examples
> of packages and executables hwich are installed to a system PATH which
> you've needed to rename would help work through this.
Here is a related but not com
Le Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 08:12:25PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>
> The basic idea from how I look at it is that Policy uses consensus as a
> stabilizing factor as well as an approval process. This is typical for
> very conservative document maintenance, such as for standards. In order
> to cha
Charles Plessy writes:
> There is no consensus for the change, but I would like to underline that
> the directive itself is not consensusual, as some other developpers
> supported me in the thread on debian-devel. I think that this is a
> strong indication that the directive must not be a should
Don Armstrong writes:
> On Tue, 06 Oct 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > […] the core of my argument is that renaming before the patches are
> > accepted is a deviation that wastes the time of our users (in that
> > case, me).
>
> Sure, but I'd expect that in most cases, a simple patch to upstream,
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 06:33:53PM -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
> > In the few cases where I've run into this problem, patches have
> > been readily accepted upstream.
>
> Indeed, that is the way to go, and the core of my argument is that
> renaming b
Le Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 06:33:53PM -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
>
> In the few cases where I've run into this problem, patches have been readily
> accepted upstream.
Indeed, that is the way to go, and the core of my argument is that renaming
before the patches are accepted is a deviation that w
Don Armstrong writes:
> Changing policy without rough consensus would require a CTTE decision on
> the matter. Since Russ and Manoj have both laid out their objections to
> changing policy by removing the should directive, I don't believe there
> is much hope in achieving rough consensus. [Hones
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 06:33:53PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> 0: Or alternatively, they're written by people like me who don't
> think about other people's use of them much.
> 1: Possibly 3/4 or 4/4; I'm not quite sure what Steve's position is.
3/4, I guess, as I didn't really make my position
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I think that the core of the disagreement is on how frequent the
> re-implementation in a different language happen. My experience is
> that in my field, bioinformatics, it is close to zero. Moreover,
> when programs with similar function and same basena
Le Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 08:00:14PM +0200, Bill Allombert a écrit :
>
> The goal of removing the language suffix is precisely to avoid to have to
> edit your script when the program is rewritten in a different language.
Le Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 11:10:24AM -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
>
> The pra
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> package: debian-policy
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy'
Limit currently set to 'package':'debian-policy'
> user: debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Unknown command or malformed arguments to command.
On Mon, Oct 05 2009, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 03:05:42PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 05 2009, Bill Allombert wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 12:36:44AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> I have now updated the README docs
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 03:05:42PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 05 2009, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 12:36:44AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I have now updated the README docs with a slightly cleaner
> >> work-flow. I would lik
Charles Plessy writes:
> After a discussion on debian-de...@lists.debian.org, that I have
> summarised in
> ‘http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20091001012838.ga30...@kunpuu.plessy.org’,
> I am proposing to drop or relax the requirement from the Policy section
> 10.4, that programs have to be r
On Mon, Oct 05 2009, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 12:36:44AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have now updated the README docs with a slightly cleaner
>> work-flow. I would like to get a show of hands from the policy team
>> about this; and if people are
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 12:36:44AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have now updated the README docs with a slightly cleaner
> work-flow. I would like to get a show of hands from the policy team
> about this; and if people are OK with this approach (using org-mode,
> with perh
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 06:52:04PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 05:04:06PM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit :
> > Charles Plessy writes:
> >
> > > My main argument is that it makes Debian installations incompatible
> > > with installations on other operating systems as well wit
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
> As a user I strongly dislike to have to edit my scripts and command
> line sessions in order to make them usable for my colleagues, and I
> would be very annoyed if the first thing to do after installing a
> package would be to check if I have to change
On Mon, Oct 05 2009, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 10:40:02AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 01 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 01:43:39PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> >> Hi, the bcron-run package provides /etc/crontab, which in
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 10:40:02AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 01 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 01:43:39PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> >> Hi, the bcron-run package provides /etc/crontab, which includes
> >
> >> >> 24 4 * * * root test -x /usr/s
On Thu, Oct 01 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 01:43:39PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> Hi, the bcron-run package provides /etc/crontab, which includes
>
>> >> 24 4 * * * root test -x /usr/sbin/anacron || run-parts --report
>> >> /etc/cron.daily
>
>> > Ok, then the b
On Mon, Oct 05 2009, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Oct 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > and that it can be more than a version number.
>>
>> I assume this refers to the Format field in the .dsc file.
>
> Yes.
>
>> Since policy does not currently say anything about the Format fiel
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > and that it can be more than a version number.
>
> I assume this refers to the Format field in the .dsc file.
Yes.
> Since policy does not currently say anything about the Format field in
> the .dsc file, we would need to mention any con
Le Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 05:04:06PM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit :
> Charles Plessy writes:
>
> > My main argument is that it makes Debian installations incompatible
> > with installations on other operating systems as well with on-line
> > documentation.
>
> That doesn't seem sufficient reason to a
26 matches
Mail list logo
