Hi.
Yes, I have a comment :)
I think the only packages that should be released are those without
bugs.
-Jim
Hi,
Automatically forward bugs upstream? OK, if each upstream agrees they
want ALL the bugs reported. (already evident in current threads to the
contrary, however; maintainers know who their upstream is, and can forward.
There is mechanism to flag a bug as having been forwarded upstream. So:
what,
Collect all licenses into one place no matter what they are?
Fine.
But -not- in base.
-Jim
Hi :)
I have no objection to telling some fact to any maint...
But the debhelper maintainer isn't the central repository for licenses...
so I don't see how that makes sense.
But I'm going to read the FDL, and if it meets DFSG and is compatible with
and does the same thing as the GPL does for so
Collect all licenses no matter what they are into one place?
Fine.
But -not- in base.
-Jim
OK, I'll read it and comment. If it's compatible with GPL, does the same
things that it does and is dfsg-free, then I do want it in.
-Jim
Hi, and no :)
the way to make a license common is for its use to increase. If you are
a developer, you can start by including the text for it in your package.
Another way, try incorporating software that uses that license.
Perhaps one reason it's not a common license, is it's unknown whether
the
Here's a datapoint for ya... this is proof that "everyone wants this license
in the base of debian" isn't true, at least not now.
What is FDL?
Q.E.D.
-Jim
o the legwork :)
-Jim
---
Jim Lynch Finger for pgp key
as Laney College CIS admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.laney.edu/~jim/
as Debian developer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/~jwl/
I can just remember where I put it :)
-Jim
---
Jim Lynch Finger for pgp key
as Laney College CIS admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.laney.edu/~jim/
as Debian developer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/~jwl/
at another pkg in main, or
to nothing (if, say, it were statically linked).
The question still stands tho: if a complete packaging realm were to be
built, could packages depend on packages in other packaging realms?
-Jim
---
Jim Lynch Finger for pgp key
as Laney College CIS admin: [E
means, let them. But if they do that, they should not be allowed to boast
debian name or quality.
Maybe if they fork, they have to alter the maintainer field to also point
at their staff.
Maybe it would be bad for them... at 4000 pkgs and up, I wish em luck :)
But it should be their choice to try, and their choice as to what network
protocol they run over their wires.
-Jim
---
Jim Lynch Finger for pgp key
as Laney College CIS admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.laney.edu/~jim/
as Debian developer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/~jwl/
ontrol-file.
> >
> > Someone please update the packaging manual to reflect this change.
>
> Where was the consensus reached, saying this should be done? I'm willing to
> read -archives about it, if someone tells me the list, and the date range.
He maintains dpkg... tha
absense of good documentation, debian
won't be very useful no matter how stable and resillient it is.
-Jim
---
Jim Lynch Finger for pgp key
as Laney College CIS admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.laney.edu/~jim/
as Debian developer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/~jwl/
f accomplishing the above.
-Jim
---
Jim Lynch Finger for pgp key
as Laney College CIS admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.laney.edu/~jim/
as Debian developer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/~jwl/
installed, that they be
+ removed all at once or, having originally preferred same, that
+ they should be installed again from all packages that installs
+ such a dir.
> +Any files that are referenced by programs but are also
> +useful as standalone documentation should be installed under
> +/usr/share// and symlinked to /usr/share/doc//.
-Jim
---
Jim Lynch Finger for pgp key
as Laney College CIS admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.laney.edu/~jim/
as Debian developer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/~jwl/
a newbie, and the 7 hour download that could
have been was turned into 14 on a repeated basis because you force me
to consider it every time I upgrade. Again, how -dare- you!"
References to "you" in the quote should be seen from the eyes of a person
who is installing debian or upgrading
wise right now :)
You go on to say you're not subscribed to the lists... for your info,
you would have to be subscribed to some lists if you were to become
a developer.
-Jim
---
Jim Lynch Finger for pgp key
as Laney College CIS admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.laney.edu/~jim/
as Debian developer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/~jwl/
forward this to any debian lists that Trek Star
has sent the note to that is not covered in the above list of lists.
If any developer has an objection to this, I'll gladly move elsewhere.
-Jim
---
Jim Lynch Finger for pgp key
as Laney College CIS admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http
Test please ignore
perl invocation per gcc invocation?? You Better Let Users Turn It OFF.
Do not depend on everyone wanting it, whatever it does (did you notice
that: I don't KNOW what it does, nor do I CARE.)
You can consider this a second SO LONG AS it can be turned off. If not
and you force me to use it, then I n
maybe the author's page covering the
package. It was a last-chance try for something useful, so I tried it...
-Jim
---
Jim Lynch Finger for pgp key
as Laney College CIS admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.laney.edu/~jim/
as Debian developer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/~jwl/
||
examples examples
^|
| arch
| . . . ---|--- . . .
| i386 <--- symlink
^ /
\/
Or ?
-Jim
---
Jim L
belongs in policy, because ALL packages would then have to
adhere to it. But if there is a way to offer disk usage information
about packages without altering packages, probably the wishlist bug
would work. Do we also need to know if all the other developers want
this done too?
-Jim
---
Jim Lynch
>
> Date:04 Jul 1999 12:26:55 +1000
> To: Roland Rosenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc: debian-policy@lists.debian.org
> From:Martin Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Bug#39830: [PROPOSED]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
>
> Roland Rosenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> write
Hi,
I'd like to see support for the user's mail being in their own home dir.
It's much easier to keep track of each person's usage.
-Jim
Hi Roland, *:
If it is decided to keep undocumented(7), howbout we make dpkg -L report on
symlinks to it?
-Jim
Bug blessed by policy...
Essentially, the reason is to keep bug reports down. Some folx report bugs en
masse and undocumented(7) was/is seen as a way to keep the bug reports down.
If "man foo" could say "There is no man page, see for equivalent/
better information, the maintainer is aware of the
> Date:18 Jun 1999 11:08:08 +0200
> To: Goswin Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc: Debian Policy List
> From:"Davide G. M. Salvetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * GB => Goswin Brederlow
>
> GB> If the suggests to non-free or contrib are depreciated by policy
> GB> or even forbi
Hi! :)
Goswin Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Shaleh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >
> > Agreed. And again, this is not personal, just Debian must retain control.
> > Any interested in being a part of this can simply apply for maintainer
> > status
Hi,
O... OK :) So you don't want to not document things... whew :)
I apologise for the outburst. It might happen again tho, I'm something
of a loose cannon sometimes :)
Yes, I can explain, I think.
I believe the idea is this:
the symlink to undocumented* should exist,
if and only if
> Try this one-liner
(that places a manifest in each pkg dir off /usr/doc of all files in said pkg)
Hi Davide,
Hot :) Thanks :) That could help people... And THAT -will- help debian!
We could modify it so it would place a manifest only in dirs queried, and make
a command that queries, caches the
>
> Date:Tue, 15 Jun 1999 11:54:58 +0200
> To: Roland Rosenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc: Martin Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Debian Policy List
> From:Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Bug#39463,#39482,#39493: timidity, cdrdao, cdtool has no manpage
>
Hi Brock :)
put this in your .bashrc and/or .bash_profile:
export EDITOR=pico
and see what happens.
Meanwhile, here's something for you to ignore if the above works:
First, the bad news :) If you're not a developer, you don't have a vote, and
you shouldn't be putting your posts in official ter
Brock Rozen wrote:
> I didn't see support for pico in this -- thus, I'm against this proposal
> until sensible-editor has pico support. (If I'm mistaken,and it does have
> pico support, then I will second this proposal).
pico is non-free, so I see no reason to hinge a decision on whether something
Hiya :)
> Date:10 Jun 1999 13:05:03 +0200
> To: Jim Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc: debian-policy@lists.debian.org
> From:"Davide G. M. Salvetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: weekly policy summary
>
> What I do think should be
PLEASE NOTE! I am -not- subscribed to debian-devel! So PLEASE Cc: me if you
want me to see it.
I wrote this, it's the typical animals game where you think of an animal
which is searched in a binary tree where non-leaf nodes are yes-or-no
questions and leaf nodes are animals.
Typical:
Hi,
Manoj, in your message to which this is a reply (see In-Reply-To header), you
write:
> Date:06 Jun 1999 11:12:10 CDT
> To: debian-policy@lists.debian.org
> From:Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: weekly policy summary
>
> Hi,
> >>"Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <[
OK, so what about fsstnd? or will debian create its own file system standard
-document-? Will it technically affect debian one way or the other if debian
goes its own way?
That is to say, given two scenarios in which all packages follow the rules of
the scenario; in one case, using an external st
Fabrizio Polacco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said in the message identified as <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>:
> Not all of FHS will be used.
say WHAT?? Part of Debian's stability is owed to its STRICT adherence to
standards such as fsstnd and fhs.
Why would Debian not use all of fhs?
-Jim
40 matches
Mail list logo
