Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If the hook supports, say, an 8 bit key, that means it's not a restricted
> piece of munitions, right? But if a hook supports, say, a 448 bit key,
> that means it's a restricted piece of munitions, right? But what about
> a hook that doesn't care about k
Gordon Matzigkeit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> BM> When the source package is compiled, the appropriate items from
> BM> the "Nonshared-depends" would get moved to "Depends".
>
> Or, equivalently, the `||' symbols in the Depends field would be
> replaced with the dependency that was actually u
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Miquel van Smoorenburg) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Daniel Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I'm actually surprised that there seem to be so few dfsg-free imapd
> >implementations - it certainly seems like something that&#x
"Jaldhar H. Vyas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However lately there have been two bug reports (#33780, #34056) which
> suggest that this may not have been a good move. I could hack the
> c-client library IMAP uses for mailbox access to solve the particular
> problems mentioned in the bug repor
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [1 ]
> On Sat, Mar 06, 1999 at 07:47:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > Not an option in the case of xfstt. X servers don't speak TTF yet
> > > (yet..) But still, I think it's possible to add some delay or re-arrange
> > > things with the runle
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi
> >>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Raul> I'm not talking about a complete regression test suite here.
> Raul> I'm talking about simple test cases. If the code dumps core
> Raul> under some condition, reproduce the conditio
Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Raul has suggested to add test cases to debian/rules to certify that a
> bug is gone. As much as I think our documentation should encourage
> maintainers to write test cases, I believe this puts undue stress on
> package maintainers. Moreover, if we do
It's been just over a week since I proposed this, and although I got
consensus from those people as maintain window managers before
proposing it, I only got one second here so far. Is my proposal
really that bad?
To recap my proposal briefly: (read the full text at the bottom of
http://www.debian
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As far as I'm concerned this leaves undecided only the following
> question: how can we best organise this and what should the result
> look like ? So far we have seen two proposals:
> i. Simply have them side by side, with some kind of way of making
>
John Lapeyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sorry, I missed most of this. I get a lot of binary only NMU's
> from Paul and Roman with an accompanying diff that also goes in the BTS.
> I just want to register my vote for allowing this.
> It is an unstable distribution-- this is meant to
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Roman Hodek writes ("Re: Bug#27906: [PROPOSED] Binary-only NMU's"):
> ...
> > It's the consent of many porters (including James Troup, ..., me, ...)
> > that we don't break the GPL by bin-only NMUs, as the complete source
> > is still available in an "offi
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [1 ]
> On Tue, Oct 13, 1998 at 11:11:42AM -0400, Daniel Martin wrote:
> > This covers the locations of icons.
> > --
> > Rationale
> >
> >T
Package: debian-policy
Priority: wishlist
This is a proposal to debian-policy in accordance with the method
Manoj has set up using the Bug Tracking System for proposed policy
changes.
This covers the locations of icons.
--
Rationale
*sigh* I meant this to go to policy, but I wasn't careful with my
keypresses in gnus...
Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Joseph Carter wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 29, 1998 at 12:16:52PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > > After purging emacs today, the damn thing deleted my /usr/local symlink
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) writes:
> Daniel, for starters, this should probably be raised as a bug against
> debian-policy, just to make sure taht we don't forget about it. We
> are underway in debian-policy on finding a new way to maintain policy.
> Right now, there basically *is* no pol
When I took over fvwm95 four or so months ago, I found, among other
various bugs filed against it, a bug stating that the load of .xpm
files shipped with fvwm95 should be moved to
/usr/X11/include/X11/pixmaps - now, this was an easy bug to fix and so
I did just that: moved the .xpm files and close
16 matches
Mail list logo
