On Monday 20 July 2015 17:14:03 Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Bill used his position as a policy editor to reject a change, not
> because it was against consensus or against the policy process, but
> because it was against his own opinion. Not as policy editor, but as
> menu maintainer.
>
> This is th
On Tuesday 25 February 2014 23:46:00 Bill Allombert wrote:
> This is a list of MSGID which have not received proper consideration:
>
> <20130512130335.ga4...@client.brlink.eu>
I think that most of this is 'sorting out details that we might hit in the
future'. I think that sorting them out when w
Hi
On Friday 14 February 2014 08:46:01 Charles Plessy wrote:
> Thanks also Markus for your comments during the last round of dicussion on
> debian-devel.
> In his original wording, Josselin proposed to add at the end of section 9.6
> one sentence pointing to the Debian menu as an option. Here it
Hi peoples
I have the impression that most people seems to agree on something like this.
I think I might even stretch it and call it a 'rough consensus' with a couple
of people in the rough end of it.
Can we please move it forward?
Thanks
Sune
On Saturday 11 January 2014 11:46:10 Charles P
On Sunday 12 May 2013 12:07:30 Bill Allombert wrote:
> > And it is probably similar for many other window managers and desktop
> > environments.
>
> How many window managers support the XDG menu specification ?
Most[tm]
It is *the* menu in Gnome, in KDE's workspaces, in XFCE, in LXDE, in razor-
On Sunday 12 May 2013 12:09:28 Charles Plessy wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> here are a few clarification in addition to the answer from Russ. I assume
> that, as for Gnome, it is possible for KDE to hide the whole Debian menu if
> wanted, so the question is about possible proliferation of FreeDestkop
>
On Saturday 11 May 2013 19:44:13 Russ Allbery wrote:
> Do you want them to? A straightforward reading of this modification to
> Policy, were I the bc and dc maintainer, would indicate that I should add
> a desktop file to the package.
There is as such nothing wrong with it, and the spec even su
Hi Charles
Thank you for your questions
On Sunday 12 May 2013 10:08:52 Charles Plessy wrote:
> If we were to recommend FreeDesktop menu entries instead of Debian menu
> entires, and if this recommendation were followed carefully, this would
> increase the number of entries in the Gnome and KDE me
On Saturday 11 May 2013 13:36:36 Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think I agree with this move, but I'd really like it to come in
> conjunction with adding a recommendation to include a desktop file, since
> that's what most of the desktop environments actually use. That way, we
> don't lose functionality.
Package: debian-policy
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
In the default desktop installation of Debian, the Debian menu is
actively hidden (On GNOME by a patch to gnome-menus).
In the - I think - most common alternate used desktop setup (KDE Plasma
Desktop), the Debian menu looks like a weird
On Sunday 14 October 2012 23:50:21 Josh Triplett wrote:
> =
> Software in Debian should not prompt users to explicitly agree to
> licenses, disclaimers, or terms of service in order to run that
> software. This includes prompts to agree to Free Sofware licenses
> (since such licenses do not re
On 2012-02-20, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> --/04w6evG8XlLl3ft
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> Hi,
>
> During a recent discussion on debian-devel about multiarch, it was shown
> that gzip does not always pro
On 2010-02-27, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> currently policy =C2=A712.1 mandates that =E2=80=9Ceach program, utility, a=
> nd
> function should have an associated manual page=E2=80=9D. However, the more =
> I
> stomp on bug reports about manual pages, the less I am convinced of
> their usefulness for
On 2009-08-11, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hmm. I see very little benefit here. Firstly, to use build id,
> you have to intercept the upstream build system and add --build-id
> (and perhaps the --build-id-style) option to ld, instead of the current
> method of letting the upstream build h
On 2009-08-10, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10 2009, Sune Vuorela wrote:
>
>> On 2009-08-10, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> I would also add that the debug symbols should live in
>>> "/usr/lib/debug/" . /full/path/to/lib_or_binary, blessing
On 2009-08-10, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I would also add that the debug symbols should live in
> "/usr/lib/debug/" . /full/path/to/lib_or_binary, blessing the current
> practice.
You are missing the new features of build-id as written earlier by
insisting on this.
/Sune
--
To UNSUB
On Tuesday 16 June 2009 20:05:40 Russ Allbery wrote:
> severity 533287 wishlist
> thanks
>
> Sune Vuorela writes:
> > There has recently on #debian-devel been a few discussions about
> > wether it was allowed to edit other packages configuration files (not
> >
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.1.0
Severity: important
Hi
There has recently on #debian-devel been a few discussions about wether
it was allowed to edit other packages configuration files
(not 'conffiles') in maintainer scripts.
My interpretation of policy is that you are only allowed to
On 2008-07-06, Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > of Debian KDE/Gnome packaging/menu policy to get the proper subset of
>> > the packages in menu (e.g. moving Gnome/gtk applications deeper in KDE
>> > menu and Qt/KDE - in Gnome one).
>>
>> The users should have equal access to good progra
On 2008-07-06, Mikhail Gusarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> fd.o menus are designed to allow distro-specific policy. It's the matter
> of Debian KDE/Gnome packaging/menu policy to get the proper subset of
> the packages in menu (e.g. moving Gnome/gtk applications deeper in KDE
> menu and Qt/KDE - i
["Followup-To:" header set to gmane.linux.debian.devel.general.]
On 2006-11-11, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In all of the following discussion, no one has ever said
> anything about *WHY* policy states that clean must undo what build
> does. Unless we are clear on the r
21 matches
Mail list logo