Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Version: 3.5.6.0
First attempt at changing policy, so if you have a suggestion, feel
free.
--- policy.sgml Thu Oct 11 14:20:37 2001
+++ policy-cgi.sgml Thu Oct 11 14:31:26 2001
@@ -6471,11 +6471,20 @@
-
:)
>
> oh, so theres something wrong with being gay is there?
>
> - bri, skipping around the room, happy and gay
--
Brian Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Debian/GNU Linux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.debian.org
LPSG "member"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.lpsg.org
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
ot; instead?
>
> Sure, just like all other occurences - only this one is incorrect.
so it is the GGPL then?
--
Brian Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Debian/GNU Linux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.debian.org
LPSG "member"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.lpsg.org
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 07:00:08PM -0600, Adam Conrad wrote:
> Joey,
>
> I think I'm in love with you... In a non-gay kinda way. :)
oh, so theres something wrong with being gay is there?
- bri, skipping around the room, happy and gay
--
Brian Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&
It should most certainly be debian/rulz, not rulez.
> > >
> > > Why not make it d3b1an/rulz, then?
> >
> > d3b14n/ru|z seems like a good choice.
>
> No, no. d3b!4n/ru|z is much clearer.
|<-r4|> !
of course, "|>3|8!4N/R00LZ"
are indeed '1337 and rename the
> > > debian/rules file to debian/rulez. Anyone who cannot see the benefits of
> > > the added c00lness effect such a change would bring is not fit to be One
> > > Of
> > > Us[TM].
> >
> > I second it.
>
>
On Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 04:25:26PM +0200, Arthur Korn wrote:
> Brian Russo schrieb:
> [ new semantics of architecture control field ]
>
> What's become of the idea of using dependencies for
> architectures? That scheme could even be extended to
> subarchitectures or hardwa
On Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 09:09:26PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 01:50:23PM -1000, Brian Russo wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 02:22:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > + To be an x-terminal-emulator, a program must:
> > > +
> &g
On Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 01:35:12PM -1000, Brian Russo wrote:
> not really relevant to -www anymore.
>
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 03:36:07PM -0800, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> > There have been attempted ports to other platforms, although none has been
> > completed yet.
> >
&
+ terminal.
are there testing utilities available such that one could
check that something is in fact 'vt100 compatible' ?
--
Brian Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Debian/GNU Linux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.debian.org
LPSG "member"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.lpsg.org
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
> @@ -1997,7 +2019,7 @@
>
> That format is a series of entries like this:
>
> - package (version) distribution(s);
> urgency=urgency
> + package (version) distribution;
> urgency=urgency
>
> * cha
inally i favoured the latter idea, but not anymore.
...
its certainly reasonable to have a transition period where
everything assumes i386 => linux-i386, but it seems more intelligent
for things to be represented as linux-i386, linux-ppc, etc.
--
Brian Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Debi
cessary to quote my entire post.
- brian.
--
Brian Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Debian/GNU Linux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.debian.org
LPSG "member"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.lpsg.org
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
s someone cares enough, its just
as well to leave it the way it is.
maybe a useful compromise would be to let something
inhabit multiple sections
--
Brian Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Debian/GNU Linux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.debian.org
LPSG "member"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.lpsg.org
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
going to be given preferential treatment?
>
> It should be in
>
> /usr/lib/gcc/arch,
> and play nicely with the othe rpakcages instead of hijacking /usr/lib
wouldn't it make more sense to put it in /usr/lib/${arch}/
or /usr/${arch}/lib ?
That way its easy to look under each
e bug reports I've
received occasionally, and I think this makes the auto builder's job
just at least a bit easier (having buil-depends)
I think it should be MUST for sid (not woody).
Seconded.
--
Brian Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Debian/GNU Linux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.debian.org
LPSG "member"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.lpsg.org
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
not miss an accidental permission setting from upstream?
I think overrides are best.
It makes sure people know exactly what is suid/sgid in the file.
Also makes it easy to see which files are suid/sgid in that package.
--
Brian Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Debian/GNU Linux <[E
has not been uploaded in 2 years.
> It
> is standards version 2.3.0.1, ICK!
>
> So, perhaps we should drop the bar a little. If your package is not at least
> 3.x.x, it gets held.
I.. (second? third? fourth?) this.
--
Brian Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Debian/GNU Li
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 11:44:59PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Brian Russo wrote:
> > I'm not saying you don't have a right to upload -qa packages or any
> > such thing. What I don't understand is if you really think they're
> > usef
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 10:20:36PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Brian Russo wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 08:57:39PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > I remember that "silo" was orphaned for several months before someone
> > > ado
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 08:57:39PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Brian Russo wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 07:56:04PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> > >
> > > Then I'
wise would someone not have cared, and grabbed it?
Which brings me to 2) can we get rid of more of these old crufty
ones? Everyone is so afraid do this, else they'll get flamed for
being evil and removing old packages! indeed the impertinence.
I'd give some examples from the BTS but
22 matches
Mail list logo
