On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 12:04:20PM +0200, Michele Alessandrini 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 considered like
>
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 01:02:37AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 20:28, Colin Watson wrote:
>
> > I think this is very bad. At the moment policy says that my EDITOR and
> > PAGER variables have priority over what random programs think is a good
> > idea, which I think is exce
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 07:48:11PM -0800, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 03:57:07PM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> > Package: debian-policy
> >
> > Section 2.3.1 says:
> > "Package names must consist of lower case letters (a-z), digits (0-9),
> > plus (+) and minus (-) signs, and
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 12:46:46AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> I think you'd need to have all of argv be converted to utf-8 by the shell.
This wouldn't work, since you're not able to handle files that are not
in UTF-8 encoding, then. This is especially bothersome if you have some
old non-UTF-
On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 02:37:07AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> I like the idea. I vote for ~/etc, though, not ~/.etc; there's little
> point hiding this one directory name if it is going to contain all of
> the configuration data.
While the general idea of having all configuration files in one
On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 10:07:08PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> --- policy.sgml~ 2002-11-15 01:49:40.0 -0500
> +++ policy.sgml 2003-01-01 21:59:26.0 -0500
> @@ -2257,6 +2257,13 @@
> separated by exactly two spaces.
>
>
> +
> + The entire chan
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 05:59:40PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 04:25:00PM +0100, Sebastian Rittau wrote:
> > + All libraries must have a shared version in the
> > + lib* package and may have a static version in the
> > + lib*-dev pack
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.7.0
Severity: wishlist
I suggest the following alteration to the policy:
--- policy.sgml.old 2002-11-09 14:48:01.0 +0100
+++ policy.sgml 2002-11-09 16:19:08.0 +0100
@@ -5592,12 +5592,12 @@
Libraries
- In gene
On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 10:43:06PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> Well, are we basically in rough consensus about this now?
>
> Here's an updated patch which just makes the priority increase 20
> instead of 30.
There's still one "the" too much.
- Sebastian
On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 02:16:32PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> --- debian-policy-3.5.6.1/policy.sgml 2002-03-14 13:17:48.0 -0500
> +++ debian-policy-3.5.6.1.hacked/policy.sgml 2002-08-06 14:09:01.0
> -0400
> @@ -6798,6 +6798,15 @@
> configuration, add 10 points;
On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 08:40:13AM -0600, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> I know that Manoj has been talking about moving to the DocBook DTD for
> the next version of policy. What are people's experiences with it?
> How does it compare to the DebianDoc DTD for what we are likely to
> want to do? Could we
I have caught-up the discussion on the topic of the short description
now. (I was not subscribed to debian-policy so I didn't follow the
discussion itself.) As the original bug-submitter I want to make
some final comments:
* I agree with most of Branden's proposal since it grants consistency
in
On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 04:35:42PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 08:02:08PM +0200, Sebastian Rittau wrote:
Gnnn...
> > Currently, most package start the short package description with a
> > capital letter, but some don't. Also, some short descriptions e
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.6.0
Severity: wishlist
Currently, most package start the short package description with a
capital letter, but some don't. Also, some short descriptions end
with a period, some don't. I think, policy state, what is correct.
(I would prefer capital letter and peri
14 matches
Mail list logo
