Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.6.1.0
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
diff -r -u debian-policy-3.6.1.0.orig/mime-policy.sgml
debian-policy-3.6.1.0/mime-policy.sgml
--- debian-policy-3.6.1.0.orig/mime-policy.sgml 2003-09-22 13:19:25.0
+0200
+++ debian-policy-3.6.1.0/mime-policy.sgml 2
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 21:28:58 -0700, Bob wrote:
> I am putting together a brief linux training video and want to use the
> debian logo at a point where I discuss the various distributions. Is this
> something that is okay to do?
If you use the Debian Open Use Logo, yes.
> I didn't find any ref
On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 14:38:31 +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> I suggest you take it to the non-debian FHS list (URL, anybody?).
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freestandards-fhs-discuss
(as found on http://www.pathname.com/fhs/).
HTH,
Ray
--
"The software `wizard' is the single gr
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 14:14:37 +0200, Gerd Knorr wrote:
> lesstif focuses on reimplementing the version 1.2 API (unless it has
> changed recently and I did'nt notice).
The operative word being "focuses"... Quoting
http://www.lesstif.org/FAQ.html#QU1.14 :
:* Will LessTif be Motif2.1 Compliant?
:
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 22:11:21 +0100, Arthur Korn wrote:
> We do "consciously export" crypto to the blacklisted countries if we put
> it into main, don't we?
I doubt it. I strongly suspect Transmeta's lawyers have gone over this issue
before (witness ftp.kernel.org/pub/welcome.msg and
pub/linux/
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 13:10:55 -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > * DFSG free programs with crypto can be made and (re)distributed
> > from the US now, as long as you don't consciously export it to
> > one of 7 countries which are on a special blacklist
>
> Of course that
I second the proposal.
On Sun, Jan 09, 2000 at 10:35:16 +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Are these environment variables,
Yes.
It would be nice if more programs supported them (I'm thinking of nsgmls in
particular - at work, http connections to the outside only work through the
proxy, and I've foun
On Tue, Oct 26, 1999 at 14:46:03 +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Are there any objections?
This is not an objection, but I wish there were slightly more accurate term
than "binary package", because some binary packages don't contain binaries
(e.g. just data and/or scripts). "binary package" could be
tters correctly, it's ACCEPTED. Yeah!
--
J.H.M. Dassen | RUMOUR Believe all you hear. Your world may
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | not be a better one than the one the blocks
| live in but it'll be a sight more vivid.
close 46516
reopen 46516
retitle 46516 [AMENDMENT 04/10/1999] MIME support sub-policy
severity 46516 normal
thanks
The proposal was seconded by Wichert Akkerman, Alexander Koch, Raul Miller
and Chris Waters; no serious objections have been raised so far.
Ray
--
Obsig: developing a new sig
On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 18:28:14 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Can we please have this document in a package (the mime package or policy
> package or whereever)?
I'm merely following menu's lead here. debian-policy includes the
menu-policy document, but refers to the FTP site as its canonical l
On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 11:24:21 -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> [As far as I can tell, you're documenting existing practice.]
Indeed. The goal is to promote the existing practice into policy so it'll be
implemented by more packages.
Ray
--
Obsig: developing a new sig
[I'm replying in public, as others may wonder about this too - hope you
don't mind]
On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 03:37:53 -0700, Seth R Arnold wrote:
> If you don't mind my asking, why not suggest the mime-support package?
This is per update-mime's documentation. The underlying idea being to make
it e
user agents and web browsers to to invoke these handlers to
+ view, edit or display MIME types they don't support directly.
+
+
Keyboard configuration
%versiondata;
]>
The Debian MIME support sub-policy
On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 11:41:07 +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> IMO if a package of this type provides a worthwhile installer of it's
> own that puts the software into /opt, and actually works with Debian,
> we shouldn't bother with a debian package for it --- just point people
> at the upstream pack
On Tue, Sep 21, 1999 at 20:23:00 -0700, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> The primary reason distributions are permitted to install software in
> /opt is that some commercial software may come hard-coded that way.
> Given the DFSG, that should never apply to Debian.
Not to Debian proper ("main"), but it cou
On Fri, Sep 17, 1999 at 01:41:20 -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> On Sep 17, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > That is, that the only consideration about whether a package should be
> > added to main, contrib or non-free be its licensing terms.
> >
> > Packages that are `too buggy to support' or `fail to mee
On Thu, Aug 05, 1999 at 15:54:49 +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > Wusses. :-)
>
> Huh? What does that mean?
"wuss" is US slang for "wimp" or perhaps "coward". What netgod probably
means is that this proposal is basically a cop-out, postponing the work
until after potato's release. I agree with t
On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 00:29:29 +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On the /usr/share/doc vs. /usr/doc issue
AOL!
> I think that with a change as large as this, people must expect
> inconsistencies if they perform partial upgrades/downgrades.
We avoid these inconsistencies where reasonably possib
On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 23:44:08 -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> I'm concerned about what happens when packages start using /usr/share/man.
> Suppose I convert alien to put it's man pages there. Alien is arch
> independant and there is no reason someone using stable can't install the
> latest version fro
On Tue, Jun 15, 1999 at 13:25:27 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> If lack of a manpage is a "problem", what do we gain by making a
> symlink to undocumented(7), if it still has to be kept as a "bug"?
Userfriendliness: it informs our users that the issue is known.
> On the other hand, if an upstream
can fix
bugs in packages. Having missing manpages listed in the BTS can also for
instance help volunteers who want to contribute documentation.
Ray
--
J.H.M. Dassen | RUMOUR Believe all you hear. Your world may
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | not be a better one
On Thu, Jun 10, 1999 at 23:26:32 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Chris" == Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Chris> (gunzip upstream.orig.tar.gz; bzip2 upstream.orig.tar)
>
> What idf detatched signatures matter to me? Or signed md5sums
> from the author?
These are valid
On Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 13:22:16 +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> Policy states that programms should use $EDITOR if set and else use editor
> as the prefered editor, but why not just use sensible-editor?
One reason that I can think of is that with $EDITOR, a program can look at
what editor the us
On Wed, May 26, 1999 at 12:49:00 -0500, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> > close 9362
> Bug#9362: gopherd: missing /etc/gopherd.conf
> Bug closed, ack sent to submitter - they'd better know why !
etc.
[As an aside, please use [EMAIL PROTECTED] rather than control's
"close" command, so that subm
On Tue, May 11, 1999 at 23:21:28 -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> However we also have libssl, openssl, cipe and ssleay in main which all
> implement the IDEA (and RSA?) algorithms.
Here's some additional information I received wrt openssl. I don't think it
makes much of a difference, unless openss
nter to the change you're referring to? One of the
worst scenarios I can come up with is an international treaty regulating
mutual recognition of (software) patents.
Ray
--
J.H.M. Dassen | RUMOUR Believe all you hear. Your world may
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | not be a bett
On Wed, May 12, 1999 at 02:13:04 -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> It's possible because software patents are illegal where pandora is.
Do we have conclusive evidence of that? I happen to live where pandora is,
and AFAIK it may not be possible to get an algorithm patented here, but it
may well be that
On Tue, May 11, 1999 at 23:21:28 -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> It seems from what I have heard that we consider IDEA and RSA to be
> non-free due to the patents on them in various countries and this is why
> we have the gpg-rsa and gpg-idea modules in non-free. However we also have
> libssl, open
On Sun, May 09, 1999 at 22:14:51 -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> We also have to come up with some way to get /dev/pts/ mounted
> automatically, right?
No. Libc6 2.1.1-0.2 and newer already have a way (/etc/init.d/devpts.sh).
Ray
--
UNFAIR Term applied to advantages enjoyed by other people which we
tc.
This is being done on pandora.debian.org which will soon be the new non-US.
Ray
--
J.H.M. Dassen | RUMOUR Believe all you hear. Your world may
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | not be a better one than the one the blocks
| live in but it'll be a
On Mon, Apr 12, 1999 at 14:04:41 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> I have received a bug report saying that the /cdrom and /floppy
> directories violate FSSTND (and FHS, I guess).
Looks like it. FSSTND gives an explicit list (that doesn't have /cdrom and
/floppy in it), and says
"Software should never
Currently, there are over a hundered bug reports in the bug tracking system
that are filed under "maintainer unknown"
(http://www.debian.org/Bugs/db/ma/l-28_unknown-29_.html).
In my experience, there are a few categories to be seen in these
- Bug reports with missing Package: pseudo-header (or one
On Tue, Feb 09, 1999 at 15:29:38 -0500, Bob Hilliard wrote:
> This reference should be deleted, or the URL updated.
>From http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/ I gather the
canonical URL nowadays is
ftp://perl.com/pub/perl/versus/csh.whynot.gz
Ray
--
POPULATION EXPLOSI
On Tue, Jan 12, 1999 at 21:31:26 -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> Is there any particular reason (besides history and inertia) that non-free
> and contrip packages aren't installed into /opt?
>
> On the one hand, we keep saying that "Debian" is main, and that contrib
> and non-free aren't part of Debia
On Thu, Dec 10, 1998 at 15:40:23 +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > I agree that this would be a more pleasing solution. Currently the
> > packages.debian.org address database is based on the maintainer
> > addresses from the Packages file, so that would have to be changed.
> > Joey?
>
> What do you
On Thu, Dec 10, 1998 at 13:47:53 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I don't very much like either of "Compiler maintenance group
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" and "Enrique Zanardi " because
> it does not structurally solve the problem it addresses.
>
> Instead, "Compiler maintenance group" <[EMAIL PROTEC
On Thu, Dec 10, 1998 at 09:46:31 +0100, Brederlow wrote:
> When considering poratibility and code cleaness, the only answere one
> can give to this question is "CC=cc".
What about CXX? What about the C9X standard when it's finished? Should we
have CC=c89 then?
> No sourcecode should rely on gcc o
On Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 16:25:09 +0100, Anders Hammarquist wrote:
> > I think we have two goals here:
> > - Make the developers use gcc for building C code in packages. [*]
>
> This is IMHO not a good idea. On the alpha architecture, gcc (at least
> 2.7.2.x) is broken, and all Debian packages in t
On Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 09:36:27 -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
[standard build environment]
> I think that's a bogus argument; a broken gcc in /usr/local/bin would
> cause the same problem.
A broken gcc in /usr/local/bin caused the libc6 problem.
A standard build environment would therefore not hav
On Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 13:00:58 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> AFAIK we tell developers to use cc, not gcc to compile programs. But in
> 4.1 the policy insists on using gcc. So it's not easy to compile all
> packages automatically with another compiler (like egcc).
I think we have two goals here:
On Fri, Oct 30, 1998 at 02:08:11AM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> [PROPOSED] Fixing of typo in packaging manual
> At the bottom, it says "ina" instead of "in a".
Seconded.
Ray
--
UNFAIR Term applied to advantages enjoyed by other people which we tried
to cheat them out
On Fri, Oct 30, 1998 at 02:05:14AM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> [PROPOSED] time stamps should be preserved
> According to a recent discussion on debian-policy on this subject we
> consider this topic as `nice-to-have', but without priority.
> Maintainers are enco
On Fri, Oct 30, 1998 at 01:58:12AM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> [PROPOSED] bashism in Packaging Manual
Seconded.
Ray
--
UNFAIR Term applied to advantages enjoyed by other people which we tried
to cheat them out of and didn't manage. See also DISHONESTY, SNEAKY,
UNDERHAND
Having reread the policy manual, I've come to the conclusion that my
pstotext package probably should go into main instead of non-free.
pstotext requires ghostscript 3.33 or later to work for PostScript properly,
and 3.51 or later to work for PDF properly. As 3.33 is in main, I think it
can go int
45 matches
Mail list logo
