On Wed, Sep 23, 1998 at 05:14:03AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> The easiest way would be for each of you to apply as maintainer and
> maintain the packages as a group - which is not yet allowed by policy.
> *sigh*
*sigh* indeed. Policy needs to be fixed then.
Several packages are succesfully m
On Sun, Sep 13, 1998 at 12:08:54PM +0200, Francesco Potorti` wrote:
> In August I posted two messages to linux.debian.policy, but no one
> answered. Is it because no one was interested in it, or because there is
> not a bidirectional gateway between the list and the group? In the latt
On Sat, Jul 18, 1998 at 08:38:59AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 10:34:41PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > No. There are several reasons why a GPL-ed package may not meet the
> > criteria for main.
>
> That probably means we're
On Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 10:34:41PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> Most of the remainder had GPL licenses. But I was shocked to find that
> most had *only* GPL licenses. If that was really the case, then these
> should go in main.
No. There are several reasons why a GPL-ed package may not meet the c
On Sat, Jul 04, 1998 at 12:18:59PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 03, 1998 at 08:14:32PM +, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > However, I really think this should be in -announce or -devel-announce
> > since it affects more than just developers really.
>
> More than "just developers", eh?
On Wed, Jul 01, 1998 at 04:22:29AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 3) Discontinue use of PGP in the project. I carefully checked the license
> terms and I have to buy it to use it as a Debian developer. I would
> venture to say that every US maintainer needs to consider whether his
> business or
[Moved to -policy]
On Thu, Jun 25, 1998 at 10:24:02AM +0200, Brederlow wrote:
> I compiled a lot of packages on my system and often I see that programms
> don't use cc as their compiler. Thus they don't use /etc/alternatives/cc.
>
> Unless somebody tells me a good reason for not using cc I will o
[-devel dropped; moved to -policy]
On Tue, Jun 16, 1998 at 11:11:19AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Finally, it would be very nice if the hierarchy was under
> > /usr/share/texmf rather than /usr/lib/texmf since the texmf hierarchy
> > was designed to be sharable this way ... and it will
On Sat, Apr 25, 1998 at 12:06:21PM -0700, Guy Maor wrote:
> Bob Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > This sounds like a mistake to me.
>
> I agree with Bob. The section 1 manpages should be in the appropriate
> package.
Making it policy for maintainers to forward section 1 manpages upst
On Sat, Apr 25, 1998 at 11:31:20AM -0400, Bob Hilliard wrote:
> This sounds like a mistake to me. Presently the debian
> maintainers are responsible for providing manpages for their packages
> if the upstream source doesn't contain them. Providing some in the
> manpages package would dilute
[From the announcement of man-pages 1.19]
>People have often sent Section 1 man pages, and so far I have rejected
>those - they belong in the distribution of the respective programs. Of
>course I still feel like that, but probably I'll include some Section 1
>pages in coming releases, for cases whe
On Tue, Apr 07, 1998 at 10:39:42PM +0100, James Troup wrote:
> Joost Kooij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I think it would be wiser to leave open the possibility for people to
> > browse the BTS and wield out obsoleted- and non-bugs, even if this
> > doesn't seem to happen very regularly at this m
On Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 04:35:09PM +0200, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > IMO the new libtool's behaviour (forced -rpath and no inter-library
> > dependencies) is seriously broken. The Debian maintainer should lobby
> > with the upstream author to get if
I see more and more software being offered in .tar.bz2 format (e.g. kernel,
egcs), which appears to be a lot more space efficient for source code.
I'd like to request that our policy wrt sources be extended to accept
.tar.bz2 too. (This entails modifying dinstall, dupload, dpkg-source and
possibly
On Tue, Mar 17, 1998 at 08:30:08AM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > One of the irritating other things is that newer versions of libtool
> > force -rpath.
>
> Yes. And lintian generates a warning about that.
Yes. I suggested this to Christian.
On Mon, Mar 16, 1998 at 10:41:42PM -0800, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
> Many of my packages contain shared libraries, and many of them use their
> own versions of libtool.
>
> These libtools, among other things, do not always link their shared
> libraries dynamically;
One of the irritating other things
On Thu, Jan 22, 1998 at 05:20:49PM +0100, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> * 7: Linking shared libraries with -lc
> approved
> - fix text to state that shared libs are always linked dynamically against
> each other, but dependency information is only included if `-lc' is used
Looking back through the ar
On Thu, Jan 15, 1998 at 10:17:26AM +, Philip Hands wrote:
> I thought that the convention was to use ``minused'' addresses for this:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> That's certainly the qmail way of doing things, and I seem to remeber a
> discussion on djb-qmail that concluded that someone who was u
On Tue, Jan 13, 1998 at 11:34:21PM +0100, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> Restrict your script to POSIX features when possible so that it may
> use /bin/sh as its interpreter. If your script works with ash, it's
> probably POSIX compliant, but if you are in doubt, use /bin/bash.
I'd pref
On Thu, Oct 23, 1997 at 10:53:39PM +0200, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> 2. Serial devices
This point was also adressed in Brian White's "Upcoming Debian Releases"
document
(http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-devel-9709/msg00042.html).
Could you please explain how you see the relation b
On Sep 19, Rob Browning wrote
> > Then, I assume Ray suggests this:
> >
> > Depends: gs
> > Suggests: gs-aladdin (>= 3.51) | gs (>= 3.51)
> >
> > Is it now OK? I mean, the package apparently is usefull with just
> > gs-3.33. So cannot it go in main?
>
> Typo? Didn't you mean
>
> Depends: gs
On Sep 19, Christian Schwarz wrote
> > Depends: gs
> > Recommends: gs-aladdin (>= 3.51) | gs (>= 3.51)
> > (note: there is no gs >= 3.51 yet, but since gs-aladdin 5 is available
> > upstream, I expect some non-free gs version will be available under the
> > GPL soon).
>
> Sorry, but if nei
22 matches
Mail list logo
