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
retitle 46516 [ACCEPTED 25/10/1999] MIME support sub-policy
forwarded debian-policy@lists.debian.org
thanks
No objections have been raised since this proposal was moved to 'AMENDMENT'
status on 04/10/1999 and it's been more than the 10 days discussion period,
so if I understand matters correctly,
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 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
29 matches
Mail list logo
