rivileged user name-spaces they're also not really true
about some of the listed commands such as "route". The choice of what
goes where seems haphazard; I have several un-privileged scripts that
aren't even using name-spaces, but are using commands from an sbin.
- Michael
--
files).
Regards,
Michael
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
/mask the SysV init script. I deliberately did not
rename the upstream provided .service file.
I don't think we should consider it a bug if .service files that are
provided by upstream don't match the name of the debian package and I
would recommend to keep those names.
Regard
Lennart, Zbyszek,
what's your take on this?
For some more background, see
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=905817
and the recent discussion at
https://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2020/01/msg00013.html
Thanks,
Michael
Am 14.01.20 um 11:13 schrieb Philipp Kern:
> On
require support for
Debian’s most relevant init system and architecture combination
(i.e. package maintainers should ensure systemd/amd64 works). Anything
beyond that should be encouraged, but kept optional, so as to unburden
the package maintainers.
--
Best regards,
Michael
Am 15.09.18 um 20:31 schrieb Russ Allbery:
> Adding Colin as base-passwd maintainer.
>
> Sean Whitton writes:
>> On Fri 10 Aug 2018 at 08:23AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
>
>>> Currently, DynamicUser gets a uid from within the following range:
>>> 61184 - 6
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 8:56 AM, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> Packages must not contain files in /home, and packages' maintainer
>> scripts must not write to users' home directories. The programs in
>> those packages may create directory hierarchies as described in
>> §3.8.3 "Home Directo
Am 18.09.2017 um 02:18 schrieb Michael Biebl:
> It's not as simple as that. You might still have running processes with
> that uid in which case usermod complains and exists.
> So to successfully run usermod you'd have to kill a processes running
> under that uid.
Fwiw, I ra
On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 13:16:24 +0200 Guillem Jover wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Fri, 2015-07-31 at 11:34:20 +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> > > Lintian now detect script creating user pointing to /home.
>
> > After a chat under #debian-qa it
On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 12:10:08 +0200 Ansgar Burchardt
wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Severity: normal
>
> Upstart is no longer part of Debian[1] nor actively maintained
> upstream. Policy should drop references to it as an alternative init
> system.
>
> I've attached a patch to remove section
This topic came up on #debian-devel today. It was mentioned by Paul
Wise, that listing a copyright holder for files which are in the public
domain is wrong. But apparently we don't have a defined way to express
that in debian/copyright. Looking at codesearch [1], I find variations like
Copyright:
reed, especially because vorlon@’s
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=610340#5 (from 2011!)
removed the fallback from debhelper, and states vorlon@’s intention to
change policy accordingly. It seems like that hasn’t happened yet, and
I’d say it’s overdue :).
--
Best regards,
Michael
s
unreproducible, in which case I shall try to investigate further.
Best,
Michael
debian-policy-build-log.txt.gz
Description: application/gunzip
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 5:46 PM, James Montgomery wrote:
> wine-mono, I've logged all the dependencies required, meticulously,
> and would now like ask you how Debian deals with such build systems
> where the build comes from the wine-mono script.
>
> As you're aware, wine-mono has the custom build
On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 6:10 PM, James Montgomery wrote:
> As a wine-development user myself who has never done an official
> backport I wouldn't mind trying my hand at backporting. Is the wiki
> for BuildingFormalBackports[0] the best place to start? Also, if this
> is too big a beast to cut my te
x-debbugs-cc: debian-w...@lists.debian.org,
debian-backpo...@lists.debian.org, 793...@bugs.debian.org
Hi,
Resent to correctly include the CC's above.
I received a bug against wine today, which boils down to a request for
regular backporting of the package to stable:
http://bugs.debian.org/793551
package: developers-reference
severity: wishlist
x-debbugs-cc: debian-backpo...@lists.debian.org
x-debbugs-cc: debian-w...@lists.debian.org
x-debbugs-cc: 793...@bugs.debian.org
x-debbugs-cc: 793551-submit...@bugs.debian.org
Hi,
I received a bug against wine today, which boils down to a request fo
Am 12.11.2014 um 15:35 schrieb Bill Allombert:
> It is well settled that priority changes are done throught the distribution
> override file and not in the package control file and thus, an error of
> priority is not a RC bug in the package.
And that. Adjusting library package priorities is useles
Am 12.11.2014 um 15:04 schrieb Andreas Henriksson:
> Hello Tim Wootton, release-team, et.al.!
>
> Thanks for your bug report.
>
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:00:16AM +, Tim Wootton wrote:
>> Package: bsdutils
>> Version: 1:2.25.2-2
>> Severity: serious
>> Justification: Policy 2.5
>>
>> Dear M
Am 15.08.2014 18:10, schrieb Michael Biebl:
> Am 15.08.2014 17:47, schrieb Gerrit Pape:
>> Severity: serious
>> Justification: Policy 2.5
[..]
> That this rule is violated in hundreds of cases [1] clearly shows that
> there is something wrong which needs to be addressed in a
, nobody was able to explain that requirement to me and the policy
text doesn't either.
That this rule is violated in hundreds of cases [1] clearly shows that
there is something wrong which needs to be addressed in a more idiomatic
way.
Michael
[1] https://qa.debian.org/debcheck.ph
Am 25.03.2014 18:56, schrieb Michael Biebl:
> Am 20.03.2014 23:58, schrieb Bill Allombert:
>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:39:17AM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 06:39:20PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
>>>> So, I propse adding to the list of exce
Am 20.03.2014 23:58, schrieb Bill Allombert:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:39:17AM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 06:39:20PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
>>> So, I propse adding to the list of exceptions in policy section 9.1.1:
>>>
>>>T
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 06:39:20PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> So, I propse adding to the list of exceptions in policy section 9.1.1:
>
>The FHS requirement that architecture-independent application-specific
>static files be located in /usr/share is relaxed to a suggestion.
>
>In partic
practice: still a bug, though non-RC severity (normal?)?
Otherwise, I'm all for relaxing that requirement and thanks for starting
the discussion!
Michael
[0] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=740345
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a
Package: developers-reference
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Dear maintainer,
the attached patch describes the Vcs-Upstream-* tags. See also
http://bugs.debian.org/719701 and
http://bugs.debian.org/719699
Thanks in advance for merging.
Index: best-pkging-practices.dbk
===
emory serves me well, he basically agreed, but was worried, that my
request came rather late into the wheezy release, so I've filed [1] and
hope we can resolve that for jessie.
Regards,
Michael
[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=699390
--
Why is it that all of the
ance without
> going into too many details about what justification should or shouldn't
> be required for using UTF-8.
Agreed. As one of the concerned package maintainers, I think this sounds
fine.
--
Kind regards,
Michael Shuler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...
ny_=Class_Gold=_Főtanúsítvány.crt
TÜBİTAK_UEKAE_Kök_Sertifika_Hizmet_Sağlayıcısı_-_Sürüm_3.crt
> But naming files after real entities (like Certinomis) is both
> harmless and a good application of a universal character encoding.
Indeed.
--
Kind regards,
Michael Shuler
--
To U
Hi,
> Michael Tautschnig writes:
>
> > At present, 213 packages fail to build using pbuilder, because they
> > contain a debian/control file starting with comment lines, then a blank
> > line, then the actual contents. This is caused by gnome-pkg-tools, as
> >
"first paragraph" as the "first non-empty paragraph."
Many thanks,
Michael
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/10/msg00026.html
pgpQlkcDeszIT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 3:50 AM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Michael Gilbert wrote:
>> I wonder if the part about +nmuN as an
>> optional versioning for non-native packages could be re-added?
>
> It's still not needed or a noticeable existing
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> In the long run, what we want is something that satisfies:
>
> package < binNMU < stable/security update < NMU < maintainer upload
>
> with all stable/security updates sorting in Debian release order.
>
> The current convention of .1 satisf
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Michael Gilbert writes:
>
>> Interesting condition. According to Developers Reference 5.9.4,
>> orphaning is a process that is only supposed to be initiated by the
>> existing maintainer.
>
> Orphaning is also
As a reminder to myself if these changes were to gain traction,
section 5.9.5 (adopting a package) will also need some rewriting since
certain instructions overlap salvaging.
Best wishes,
Mike
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tr
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Michael Gilbert, 2012-07-16, 18:35:
>
>> +
>> +If a package has been already been orphaned, you may salvage it without
>> any
>> +kind of approval.
>> +
>> +
>> +
>> +Filing a removal
package: developers-reference
severity: normal
version: 3.4.8
tag: patch
Hi,
I've prepared an initial draft of a developers reference patch that
would document a package salvaging process. Please see below.
Best wishes,
Mike
--- pkgs.dbk.orig 2012-07-16 18:19:56.065047490 -0400
+++ pkgs.
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Chris Knadle wrote:
> I already proposed to write a bug report against the developers-refernece
> package in the email prior to the one you're replying to. [1]
>
> [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2012/04/msg00046.html
Then do it!
Best wishes,
Mike
--
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Chris Knadle wrote:
>> > Try to read between the lines -- it implies "be reluctant to do an NMU
>> > unless you're absolutely sure of what you're doing". That's a much
>> > higher bar than the spirit that I think is embodied in Zack's email
>> > describing NMUs.
>
ery maintainer is a astetic preference.
It's pretty obvious to me that pulling upstart specific details into
sysv init scripts is a bad idea, especially for package maintainers who
don't use upstart. I would much rather prefer a well tested
implementation in invoke-rc.d that is written and maintained by people
who know about upstart.
Michael
--
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 16.03.2012 23:12, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 10:57:20PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
>>>> Personally, I would just prefer, if the shell library would forward the
>>>> action requests to the native init system.
>
>>> But this falls dow
On 16.03.2012 22:28, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 09:25:17PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
>>> Well, it would be inappropriate to refuse to stop the service because
>>> upstart was running. The more likely outcome is that the init script
>>> will n
On 16.03.2012 22:05, Michael Biebl wrote:
> If invoke-rc.d intercepts and redirects the request to upstart (or
> systemd), should update-rc.d do the same?
>
> Say you run "update-rc.d disable", should this disable only
> the sysv init script, both, or only the upst
already horrible as is, adding more if ; then ;
else statements and various init system specific code will only make
that worse.
Michael
--
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 16.03.2012 22:08, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 01:07:08PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> If upstart and systemd can agree on the same invocation semantics for the
>> shell library, we could even provide a shell library that handled both and
>> make this more generic.
>
> I th
nd if so, which ones?
If invoke-rc.d intercepts and redirects the request to upstart (or
systemd), should update-rc.d do the same?
Say you run "update-rc.d disable", should this disable only
the sysv init script, both, or only the upstart/systemd service?
Michael
--
Why is it
On 16.03.2012 21:25, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Personally, I would just prefer, if the shell library would forward the
> action requests to the native init system.
I still like this part of the original upstart-job idea (Steve knows the
details), simply because admins are used to the
/etc/
On 16.03.2012 21:18, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 08:53:15PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
>
>> As I've already mentioned before, I don't like the approach, that any
>> init script should use something like:
>
>>> if [ "$1" = sta
when the
package both installs a upstart job and sysv init script?
How will "service" behave?
There are too many open questions, so I can't support the text in the
current form.
Michael
--
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Michael Gilbert writes:
>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 1:43 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>>> I think you're in the "rough" of "rough consensus."
>
>> It takes some moxie to put a dent into the st
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 1:43 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Michael Gilbert writes:
>
>> Opinions are malleable (wrong and right are all a matter of
>> perspective). This is something sufficiently nuanced that I think its
>> worth sufficient pondering to really get it righ
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Michael Gilbert writes:
>
>> I understand this section very well, and even with that lead-in wording,
>> I contend that sufficient ambiguity remains that additional clarity is
>> needed. Otherwise, it wouldn't h
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Michael Gilbert writes:
>
>> This is a bit off-topic for the bug report, but while you're thinking
>> about rewording this section, it may be prescient to consider
>> non-explicit dependencies.
>
>> For
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> This is the bug concerning the wording in current Policy 2.2.1:
>
> In addition, the packages in main
>
> * must not require a package outside of main for compilation or
> execution (thus, the package must not declare a "Depends",
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Hi,
>
> During a recent discussion on debian-devel about multiarch, it was shown
> that gzip does not always produce the exact same output from a given
> input file.
>
> While it was shown that removing the requirement to compress
> document
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Charles Plessy wrote:
>> I believe it should also document the N.N standard for
>> NMUs of non-native packages, since people don't seem inclined to change to
>> +nmu and there's probably no reason to do so.
I suppose this isn't a compelling argument, but it's just
* PJ Weisberg [Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 08:46:22AM -0700]:
> On Wednesday, June 15, 2011, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I'm not sure if we can make it much more obvious than what it currently
> > says. There's no mention or hint of permissions anywhere in the
> > description you quote, and it specifically
;> /run/shm). I have put this sentence after the comment about the
>> FHS because TTBOMK this is not currently in the initial FHS proposal,
>> though I will bring it up on the FHS list as an optional feature (this
>> subdirectory has not yet been adopted more widely). If t
* Bill Allombert [Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 02:48:11PM +0200]:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 01:33:03PM +0200, Michael Prokop wrote:
> > | 5.6.3 Uploaders
[...]
> > I don't mean to nit-pick but I just had a discussion with some DDs
> > about who should be really listed in the
* Russ Allbery [Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 07:30:37AM -0700]:
> Michael Prokop writes:
> > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Uploaders
> > reads as follows:
> > | 5.6.3 Uploaders
> > |
> > | List of the names and email addresses of co
Package: debian-policy
Severity: normal
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Uploaders
reads as follows:
| 5.6.3 Uploaders
|
| List of the names and email addresses of co-maintainers of the
| package, if any. If the package has other maintainers besides the
| one nam
Am 05.04.2011 20:13, schrieb Bill Allombert:
> I suggest to wait until /run exists in unstable systems, but not until
> packages are
> using it. This allows developers to notice the change and maybe comment on
> the patch.
http://packages.qa.debian.org/b/base-files/news/20110405T161708Z.html
--
y say that /run is expected to be a temporary file system.
Other than that, the proposed text looks fine too me and has my seconds.
Michael
--
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
* Russ Allbery [Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 08:12:03PM -0700]:
> Michael Prokop writes:
> > Yeah, actually the change is breaking existing packages which used to
> > work just fine (disclaimer: no, the ones I'm talking about aren't
> > available in the official Debian pool
* Julien Cristau [Son Apr 03, 2011 at 10:16:47 +0200]:
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 05:03:47 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > On Sat, 2011-04-02 at 21:28:08 +0200, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> > > dpkg 1.16.0 appears to refuse to install packages which have a Version:
> > > field which does not sta
Hi Steve!
Am 21.03.2011 18:58, schrieb Steve Langasek:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:30:06AM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
>
> Right, in the policy proposal I am describing that each init script is
> responsible for checking this. But the actual *implementation* of this
> check can
Am 21.03.2011 10:56, schrieb Michael Biebl:
> Am 21.03.2011 08:07, schrieb Ralf Treinen:
>
>> Here is a list of files that are known to be shared by both packages
>> (according to the Contents file for sid/amd64, which may be
>> slightly out of sync):
>>
>> /
using these files? The impact from not using this
files would be no/fewer links in the documentation.
Cheers
- --
Michael Fladischer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk1tLo8ACgkQeJ3z1
hi,
thanks for this hint. but how I recognize a package as being 'virtual'?
the Packages files offers this information only sometimes in the
description area.
Does an extra list of virtual packages exist? Where?
greetings
michael
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Bill
maintained individually by the
package
maintainers. May be a process can be established to harmonize the
entries in the individually package info files. If i.e. a 'conlict' has
been
named it shoul appear in the corresponding package info file.
greetings
michael
examples:
Package: abuse
Package: debian-policy
Severity: minor
The word "programs" should be "program" in the phrase "the helper
programs help2man".
-- System Information:
Debian Release: squeeze/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.33-2-amd64 (SMP w
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Section 8.4 of the policy says:
| 8.4 Development files
|
| The development files associated to a shared library need to be
| placed in a package called librarynamesoversion-dev, or if you
| prefer only to support one development version at a time,
| lib
Bill Allombert math.u-bordeaux1.fr> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 02:02:18PM +, Michael T wrote:
> > Some alternatives to packages creating configuration files (often best
> > handled
> > in co-operation with upstream) are:
> > * Ensuring that the package
last are also rather ugly and suffer from many of the same problems, especially
if there is no clean separation between user and application-generated
dotfiles).
I await replies with interest.
Regards,
Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subje
available about
linux-modules-* at all.
The process might change again in the future which might make the
situation even more complex. Therefore I think there should be some
(sub) policy explaining what to do.
Michael
-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
APT prefers unstable
A
> Michael Tautschnig writes ("Bug#422552: Minor typos and wording suggestions"):
> > While reading the Debian policy I found some minor things I'd like to see
> > improved. I'm refering to the PDF dated 2006-10-02, so page numbers might be
> > slightly
s ...
- Page 41, 6.6, 1, 2: ... If this does not work, the error unwind: -- so - what,
there seems to be some part of the sentence missing.
Ok, finally, that's it for now. If some of my points are valid, minor may not be
an appropriate severity anymore...
Best regards,
Michael
pgpdl9rgvAJFY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
> Ian Jackson wrote:
>> I don't know what azareus's UI for this is like but depending on the
>> situation it might be best to make a configuration option, set by
>> default, which suppresses it. For example, if the current
>> code presents dialogues nagging to be allowed to update from upstream,
On Jan 14, 1:10 pm, "Shaun Jackman" wrote:
> On a stable Debian system, system-wide upgrades can be far between. I
> prefer to give the user a choice of whether to use the update system
> provided by the upstream author to update the software before the next
> stable release of Debian.
like i said
hello,
is there a policy on whether an executable is permitted to update itself? i
personally believe that in order to maintain the security of the system, apt
and apt alone should be used to install software updates. recently i
submitted a bug on azureus about how it should not urge users to i
On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 05:33:25PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
And HOW can I get UID's >=65536 to work?
I have already tried it in my /etc/passwd and
/etc/group but it gives tonns of errors.
Any hints?
Hint: you need to be more specific about the problems you're having.
Mike Stone
--
T
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 12:50:57PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 10818 March 1977, Michael Meskes wrote:
Interesting date Joerg. :-)
> > On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 11:29:48AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >> I'm withdrawing the "Package Policy Committee" delega
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 11:29:48AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I'm withdrawing the "Package Policy Committee" delegation made by Branden
> in June last year, in:
> ...
Would you care to tell us why?
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Micha
I took a stab at implementing the dbrief concept that I described
previously. This tool is useful for me, and I am providing it in the
hope that other users find it useful as well. please check out my
work at http://dbrief.sourceforge.net and provide feedback.
mike
> thank you for all of the in
thank you for all of the interesting comments.
what I am getting at is that there should be a simple way for the user
to discover what he or she just installed. "dpkg -L ",
which is a good start, gives you information about installed files,
but the command itself is not easily discoverable (i did
es as well. Some packages do not provide
binaries at all (gnome-core, documentation, etc.). And some have
different names than the primary binary because it is a particular
distribution of popular software (package tetex binary latex, etc.).
Thank you for your thoughts and consideration.
Regards,
Michael Gilbert
ong as we decide on one.
The issue with how to get patches into your new package is not that
important I think, as this is usually rather straight-forward from
looking at what's in debian/patches already. Also, the 'clean' target
should unapply any patches, so there's no pressi
If Debian ever hopes to have a policy beyond "all remaining uids and
gids are reserved for local use",
I, for one, don't want too much of a policy beyond that. Debian should
not be in the business of "staking claim" on uid's. We need a minimal
number to bootstrap the system, but beyond that we
should be worth translating?
translate debconf and/or package descriptions. Send a mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject like 'GET 2 it' and you will get a mail with a guide and
some untranslated stuff.
Gruss
Grisu
--
Michael Bramer - a Debian Linux Develo
Jochen Voss wrote:
[a lot of stuff that makes sense]
I second that.
Michael
retitle 176506 [PROPOSAL] Make debconf mandatory for prompting the user
thanks
Michael
On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 01:41:47PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 11:07, Michael Bramer wrote:
>
> > The DDTP has no problmes with UTF-8 in control fields. Some maintainer
> > use UTF-8 or something else with 'some translations' in the descriptions
> start using UTF-8 in maintainer fields and package descriptions.
The DDTP has no problmes with UTF-8 in control fields. Some maintainer
use UTF-8 or something else with 'some translations' in the descriptions.
This is not nice.
The policy should be: use normal ACSII and UTF-8 encodi
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 11:57:17AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Dec 2002, Michael Lamertz wrote:
> > Oh dammit, do we really have to enter these dark lands...
>
> Apparently. Let me get my scuba suit, and a harpoon...
>:->
> That _is_ the
n be fixed.
What you're saying is basically: "I don't care that they're doing that
for years, I enforce my way. My policy breaks their stuff? Ok, they
let's break that other package too, because my policy is correct by my
own definition."
Now look again at your s
Whoops, debian-policy is list @-)
K, I just subscribed to debian-perl and debian-policy, but I cannot
decide to move the thread into either one, since both fit IMO.
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 01:11:56PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Michael Lamertz wrote:
> > I was wandering for a while no
7;d mind that much, but still...).
--
Well, then let's give that Java-Wussie a beating... (me)
Michael Lamertz| +49 2234 204947 / +49 171 6900 310
Sandstr. 122 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
50226 Frechen
ng (tm).
Is there anything one can do about that?
Regards - Mike
--
Well, then let's give that Java-Wussie a beating... (me)
Michael Lamertz| +49 2234 204947 / +49 171 6900 310
Sandstr. 122 |
On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 01:14:57PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I am seeking seconds for this proposal.
seconded.
--
michael d. ivey[McQ] : "Every artist was first an amateur."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
http://g
On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 07:46:07PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> Why we can't resolve this in a simple way is beyond me.
+ Gimme an F, gimme an R, gimme an E, E, Z, E. What does it spell?
Michael
--
"Aristotle gave you logic. Apply it."
-- Branden Robinson
1 - 100 of 190 matches
Mail list logo
