Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 155680 [ACCEPTED] bump priority of window managers which support WMSP
Bug#155680: [ PROPOSAL ] bump priority of window managers which support WMSP
Changed Bug title.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assi
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.
I don't object.
--
G. Branden Robinson| "I came, I saw, she conq
On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 03:13, Sebastian Rittau wrote:
> 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
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
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.
--- debian-policy-3.5.6.1/policy.sgml 2002-03-14 13:17:48.0 -0500
+++ debian-policy-3.5.6.1.hacked/policy.sgml2002-08-06 14:09:01.0
-04
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 10:44:15AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> Hmm, 30 points is a lot. That would mean that a netwm-compliant
> window manager which didn't support the Debian menu system would rank
> higher than a non-netwm system which did. I'm not sure I'm willing to
> go that far.
Me neithe
On Wed, 2002-08-07 at 13:44, Chris Waters wrote:
> Hmm, 30 points is a lot.
Yeah, I realized that right after submitting the bug. I agree; let's
make it 20.
> I definitely have mixed feelings about this whole thing. I'd like
> gnome to work hassle-free out of the box, but I'd also like to ha
On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 02:16:32PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> + If the window manager complies with the + name="Free Desktop Group">, add 30 points.
Hmm, 30 points is a lot. That would mean that a netwm-compliant
window manager which didn't support the Debian menu
Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Package: debian-policy
> Severity: normal
> Tags: patch
>
> The attached patch should speak for itself. This came about because
> users would often install 'x-window-system' (installs twm) and 'gnome2'
> (installs metacity) in order to get a GNOME 2 des
> Package: debian-policy
> Severity: normal
> Tags: patch
> The attached patch should speak for itself. This came about because
> users would often install 'x-window-system' (installs twm) and 'gnome2'
> (installs metacity) in order to get a GNOME 2 desktop, but twm had a
> higher alternatives
On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 02:16:32PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> The attached patch should speak for itself. This came about because
> users would often install 'x-window-system' (installs twm) and 'gnome2'
> (installs metacity) in order to get a GNOME 2 desktop, but twm had a
> higher alternativ
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;
Package: debian-policy
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
The attached patch should speak for itself. This came about because
users would often install 'x-window-system' (installs twm) and 'gnome2'
(installs metacity) in order to get a GNOME 2 desktop, but twm had a
higher alternatives priority than me
13 matches
Mail list logo
