On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:10:30PM +0100, David Bremner wrote:
> Rob Browning writes:
>
> > Bill Allombert writes:
> >
> >> What to do for ascii :
> >>
> >> emacs24 --batch -Q -l ./README-css.el -l org -l org-ascii
> >> --visit Process.org --funcall org-export-as-ascii
> >>
>
> Attached is a be
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 04:31:37PM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On 15/11/14 09:35, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > If those are the real reasons, then let's drop the rule only for
> > *libraries*, but not for every other package.
>
> I think libraries are merely the most visible and obvious example of
On 15/11/14 09:35, Santiago Vila wrote:
> If those are the real reasons, then let's drop the rule only for
> *libraries*, but not for every other package.
I think libraries are merely the most visible and obvious example of
something that is pulled in as an implementation detail of part of the
des
Bill Allombert writes:
> E: debian-policy: privacy-breach-may-use-debian-package
> usr/share/doc/debian-policy/Process.html
> You may use libjs-mathjax package. (http://orgmode.org/mathjax/mathjax.js)
OK, so this is all a bit silly to display π, but you can either
diff --git a/Process.org b/P
Bill Allombert writes:
> E: debian-policy: privacy-breach-may-use-debian-package
> usr/share/doc/debian-policy/Process.html
> You may use libjs-mathjax package. (http://orgmode.org/mathjax/mathjax.js)
Hmm. I don't have much experience with that js stuff. It might be
possible to turn off mathjax
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:10:30PM +0100, David Bremner wrote:
> Rob Browning writes:
>
> > Bill Allombert writes:
> >
> >> What to do for ascii :
> >>
> >> emacs24 --batch -Q -l ./README-css.el -l org -l org-ascii
> >> --visit Process.org --funcall org-export-as-ascii
> >>
>
> Attached is a be
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 09:09:06AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> If I read #759260 correctly, Gerrit Pape objected
> to allowing depending on lower-priority packages and said that the current
> "file a bug and raise the priority" process is just fine. However, IMHO it
> clearly is, not because
Hi,
Charles Plessy:
> on my side I agree that self-contained priority levels are not needed anymore
> and are even becoming harmful. This said, there were objections to the
> removal
> of this rule in this thread and in #759260, and I do not remember if we had
> good answers to each of them. Ma
8 matches
Mail list logo