On 08 Jul 2003 10:42:25 +0200
Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The proposal is that policy explicitly permit what is
> already done by some packages -- namely, the regeneration
> of configuration files that have been deleted. This seems
> sensible. This clause will serve as a warning to
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 01:20:05 -0700 (PDT)
albert usqualius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's a policy update on my wishlist:
>
> I'd like all init.d scripts to return a useful value.
> I wrote an rc script that reports whether each script
> passed or failed (OK/Fail ala RedHat), only to
> discove
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 12:04:20 +0200
Michele Alessandrini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, I'm a happy debian user, I really estimate the huge work behind such a
> magnificent project. I'd like to express a little doubt about policy (very
> humble opinion): it seems like programs authors are conside
On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:15:09 -0500
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Re-sent due to inability to properly address email.]
>
> Section 10.2 of policy currently describes uid and gid classes covering
> the range of 0-65535. This appears to no longer be comprehensive: on a
> current system
On Wed, 14 May 2003 11:17:32 -0700
Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Choose the best one" implies having multiple icons of different
> > sizes, right?
>
> Um, no, if there's only one, then that's obviously the best one. :)
That's a given. But if they want their icons to be reasonably
On Wed, 14 May 2003 00:30:29 -0700
Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 05:47:15PM -0400, David B Harris wrote:
>
> > 32x32 is *huge* in a menu, and 48x48 is insane. At least for common
> > use today :)
>
> I agree -- icons in the menu
On Wed, 14 May 2003 00:36:58 +0200
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Don't you think it would be nice if they could be used for both?
> > (After all, application icons on a panel are menus in their own
> > right.)
>
> The menu manual is not supposed to comment on such things.
I'm just
On Tue, 13 May 2003 18:29:57 -0400
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David B Harris wrote:
> > (Note that I'm subscribed to the list, no need to mail me
> > personally.)
> >
> > On Tue, 13 May 2003 15:58:49 -0500
> > John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECT
On Tue, 13 May 2003 23:03:02 +0200
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I know at least two dozen people who use 48x48 icons, even though
> > they're not in the menu. (They're in a panel or somesuch.)
>
> This document apply onlys to icons in /usr/lib/menu for application
> menu. Icons sp
(Note that I'm subscribed to the list, no need to mail me personally.)
On Tue, 13 May 2003 15:58:49 -0500
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 04:30:10PM -0400, David B Harris wrote:
> > Instead of adjusting this to "48x48" to match curre
On Tue, 13 May 2003 21:56:35 +0200
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2. The icons may not be larger than 32x32 pixels, although
> smaller sizes are ok.
>
> To accomodate with current workspace size, we could eventually
> change size in point 2 to 48x48.
I know at least two do
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 05:30:46 -0500
David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As for you leaving Debian ... why do people always bring that out?
> Jeeze.
Just to clarify. One can assume that if Debian Policy starts mandating
things without merit and which cause our users problems, the
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 03:28:40 +
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In other words, somebody will be told "that bug's fixed in the
> development version of this package upstream", so they go and try it
> out. But, hey presto, not only does it ignore the configuration set up
> while using th
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 04:30:48 +0100
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Maybe ask on the FHS list for comments, too?
> This is outside FHS-domain. But I think that a so big change from
> standard UNIX practice would be so stupid that if accepted I would
> probably leave debian.
It's been sta
On 02 Jan 2003 17:37:13 +
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > + > id="http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/cgi-bin/rfc/rfc2279.html";
> > name="UTF-8">
>
> Could we please have a more, err, generic URL for the RFC?
http://www.faqs.org/ftp/rf
On 01 Jan 2003 22:07:08 -0500
> I think it is fairly obvious that we need to eventually transition to
> UTF-8 for our package infrastructure; it is really the only sane
> charset in an international environment. Now, we can't switch to
> using UTF-8 for package control fields and the like until dp
Hey ho :)
After a discussion on debian-devel@lists.debian.org, the proposed names
have been changed to "audio-mixer" and "x-audio-mixer", since "mixer"
was very generic.
--
.--=-=-=-=--=---=-=-=.
/David Barclay HarrisAut agere, aut mori.
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.6.0
Severity: wishlist
(I'm subscribed to [EMAIL PROTECTED], no need to CC: me; As posted to
debian-devel@lists.debian.org):
Hey ho :) I recently started maintaining the package gqmpeg, which was
orphaned by Takuo KITAME.
Looking it over, one thing strikes me
18 matches
Mail list logo
