On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 10:58:19PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > > Yes, but if I amend the proposal like this, then it needs to be seconded
> > > all over again, doesn't it?
[...]
> Well, they don't invalidate it, but they change it from the one that the
> seconders seconded. How do I know their se
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 11:58:56PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > Yes, but if I amend the proposal like this, then it needs to be seconded
> > all over again, doesn't it?
>
> I don't see why. You need two seconds to go from "proposal" to
> "amendment". To go from "amendment" to "accepted", y
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 04:53:12PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Yes, but if I amend the proposal like this, then it needs to be seconded all
> over again, doesn't it?
I don't see why. You need two seconds to go from "proposal" to
"amendment". To go from "amendment" to "accepted", you need
consen
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 05:41:44PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 01:22:50PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > I would prefer to let this rest until the initial amendment is in Policy,
> > since it's not very easy to get seconds and this amendment is already
> > overdue.
>
>
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 01:22:50PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> I would prefer to let this rest until the initial amendment is in Policy,
> since it's not very easy to get seconds and this amendment is already
> overdue.
Surely it's possible to change a proposed amendment before it is
accepted? Th
retitle 66023 [AMENDMENT 06/05/2001] Treat plugins and shared libraries
differently
thanks
Four developers have seconded this proposal, so according to "3.3 Creating
an Amendment" of policy-process document, this proposal is an amendment.
I'm not sure about the date, the document says "[AMENDMEN
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 66023 [AMENDMENT 06/05/2001] Treat plugins and shared libraries
> differently
Bug#66023: [PROPOSAL] Treat plugins and shared libraries differently
Changed Bug title.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 12:18:46PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I made one posting with such a list, but I've been swamped
> recently. I can start an automated posting of a list; with the master
> list being in policy CVS so that either Julian or I can updfate it;
> people can send me
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 01:03:09PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > Manoj and I are only two people. Handling policy bugs is hard for a
> > number of reasons:
> >
> > (1) There are a lot of them, and many of them are now quite long.
> >
> > (2) We don't have any official editorial rights, so unless
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> +Shared object files (i.e. libsoname.so) that are
>
>Seth Arnold noticed (in a private mail to me) how this stuff in parenthesis
>shouldn't be there (my mistake), because the plugins can be named
>differently -- the file name makes no practical diff
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 11:36:41PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> +to by third party executables (binaries of other packages),
> >> +should be installed in the subdirectories of the
> Richard> ^^^
>
> Richard> I would drop that "the", to make clea
>>"Richard" == Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Richard> On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 12:37:22PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> +to by third party executables (binaries of other packages),
>> +should be installed in the subdirectories of the
Richard>
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 12:37:22PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> +to by third party executables (binaries of other packages),
> +should be installed in the subdirectories of the
^^^
I would drop that "the", to make clear that packages can create
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 12:37:22PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I second this proposal, subject to the typographical and
> grammatical corrections included below.
Thanks. :)
> --- policy.sgml.prevMon Jul 10 11:01:16 2000
>
> +++ policy.sgml Mon J
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hi,
I second this proposal, subject to the typographical and
grammatical corrections included below.
manoj
--- policy.sgml.prevMon Jul 10 11:01:16 2000
+++ policy.sgml Mon Jul 10 11:41:12 2000
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> Pester people on IRC to second ones that you think are good ideas but
Anthony> haven't received any attention.
This should be anyone on this list who is interesterd in the
policy proposals (if you are not interested in policy, why are you
>>"Josip" == Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Josip> Our inability to get this into Policy is appaling, isn't it? :<
You are being too hard on yourself. Putting together a proposal
that gathers seconds is non trivial; one has to convince people of
the rationale, come up with the
quot; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Re: Shared libs vs. plugins.
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], debian-policy@lists.debian.org
>
> I'd prefer if people seconded the diff in #66023 :) and then we can refine
> that stuff
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Can any developer second policy proposals? If so, I second this one too...
(I have a package libwine that puts dynamically-loaded stuff into
/usr/lib/wine)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.75
>
> I'd prefer if people seconded the diff in #66023 :) and then we can refine
> that stuff further if necessary.
>
agreed, let's get this solved.
(Seconded).
- Forwarded message from Oliver Elphick -
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 12:48:12 +0100
From: "Oliver Elphick"
Subject: Re: Old proposals again (Re: [PROPOSAL] Re: Shared libs vs. plugins.)
To: Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECT
t;, debian-policy@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Old proposals again (Re: [PROPOSAL] Re: Shared libs vs. plugins.)
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 12:48:12 +0100
From: "Oliver Elphick"
Josip Rodin wrote:
>Nobody explicitely said they second it, and nobody explicitely said they
>object.
>
&g
(missed this mail in my enormous inbox, sorry :)
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 08:34:43PM -0700, Seth Arnold wrote:
> > They need to be exempt from the rule for shlibs file, too.
> >
> > See my attempt in #66023...
>
> Aye, too true. It may be easier for the proposal to not decide the paths
> involve
Josip Rodin wrote:
>Nobody explicitely said they second it, and nobody explicitely said they
>object.
>
>Several people (mostly maintainers of packages against which lintian barfs
>due to this) have said they would like this change in Policy, but not
>"officially", even though I've aske
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 12:52:10AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > > Wichert, I think "Geez, again?" is the incorrect response to Daniel's
> > > mail. Bugs #42399 and #65345 against debian-policy have been outstanding
> > > for 1 year and 268 days and 322 days. #65345 even has a patch against
> > >
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 08:34:43PM -0700, Seth Arnold wrote:
> proposals. (Though in the section about seconding, it makes especial
> reference to "registered Debian developers". Perhaps for the purposes of
> getting this bug taken care of, simply being An Interested User counts
> for proposals. If
* Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010426 14:54]:
> Our inability to get this into Policy is appaling, isn't it? :<
Especially since both you and Wichert have put effort into this -- that
is two possible seconds for a proposal. I've taken a closer look at the
policy-process text and I do not think
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 12:52:10AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> (2) We don't have any official editorial rights, so unless a proposal
> has been seconded in the standard way, it's difficult to figure
> out what to do with it.
Pester people on IRC to second ones that you think are good ide
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 11:42:41PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > Wichert, I think "Geez, again?" is the incorrect response to Daniel's
> > mail. Bugs #42399 and #65345 against debian-policy have been outstanding
> > for 1 year and 268 days and 322 days. #65345 even has a patch against
> > lintian,
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 02:13:41PM -0700, Seth Arnold wrote:
> > > For now I added a lintian overrides for this, but Sean asked me to bring
> > > up
> > > discussion here to clarify what lintian should treat as shared lib in the
> > > future in order to properly solve this issue.
> >
> > Geez, ag
* Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010426 11:18]:
> Previously Daniel Kobras wrote:
> > For now I added a lintian overrides for this, but Sean asked me to bring up
> > discussion here to clarify what lintian should treat as shared lib in the
> > future in order to properly solve this issue.
>
31 matches
Mail list logo
