Re: Bug#741573: #741573: Menu Policy and Consensus

2015-07-20 Thread Sune Vuorela
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

Bug#707851: Processed: tagging 707851

2014-02-26 Thread Sune Vuorela
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

Bug#707851: [call for seconds] Re: Bug#707851: Let's remove the Debian menu from the Debian Policy ?

2014-02-13 Thread Sune Vuorela
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

Bug#707851: Let's remove the Debian menu from the Debian Policy ?

2014-02-13 Thread Sune Vuorela
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

Bug#707851: debian-policy: soften the wording recommending menu files

2013-05-12 Thread Sune Vuorela
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-

Bug#707851: debian-policy: soften the wording recommending menu files

2013-05-11 Thread Sune Vuorela
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 >

Bug#707851: debian-policy: soften the wording recommending menu files

2013-05-11 Thread Sune Vuorela
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

Bug#707851: debian-policy: soften the wording recommending menu files

2013-05-11 Thread Sune Vuorela
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

Bug#707851: debian-policy: soften the wording recommending menu files

2013-05-11 Thread Sune Vuorela
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.

Bug#707851: debian-policy: soften the wording recommending menu files

2013-05-11 Thread Sune Vuorela
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

Bug#690495: Prohibit click-through licenses or disclaimers

2012-10-17 Thread Sune Vuorela
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

Re: [proposal] remove the requirement to compress documentation

2012-02-20 Thread Sune Vuorela
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

Re: Removing the manpage requirement for GUI programs?

2010-02-27 Thread Sune Vuorela
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

Re: Automatic Debug Packages

2009-08-11 Thread Sune Vuorela
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

Re: Automatic Debug Packages

2009-08-11 Thread Sune Vuorela
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

Re: Automatic Debug Packages

2009-08-10 Thread Sune Vuorela
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

Bug#533287: debian-policy: please clarify 10.7.4

2009-06-16 Thread Sune Vuorela
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 > > 

Bug#533287: debian-policy: please clarify 10.7.4

2009-06-16 Thread Sune Vuorela
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

Re: gnome, kde, xfce use non-policy main menu

2008-07-06 Thread Sune Vuorela
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

Re: gnome, kde, xfce use non-policy main menu

2008-07-06 Thread Sune Vuorela
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

Re: Bug#397939: Proposal: Packages must have a working clean target

2006-11-11 Thread Sune Vuorela
["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