Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I appreciate the work!
Well, more to come. Let me know if you have any suggestions either
for the maint fixing or the redesigned version.
--
...Adam Di Carlo..<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...http://www.onshored.com/>
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 09:45:32AM -0600, Adam DiCarlo wrote:
> As the doc-base maintainer, some comments on the progress of this bug.
>
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 02:01:29AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > It would be cool if somebody could figure out how to fix #114692
> > first. :( Packages with
As the doc-base maintainer, some comments on the progress of this bug.
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 02:01:29AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> It would be cool if somebody could figure out how to fix #114692
> first. :( Packages with many distinct pieces of additional
> documentation can't practicably u
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 11:56:51AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 07:39:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > b) what severity such bugs should be
> >
> > I strongly disagree with this. I wrote up an extensive explanation of
> > why recently:
> >
> > http://lists.de
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 07:39:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > b) what severity such bugs should be
>
> I strongly disagree with this. I wrote up an extensive explanation of
> why recently:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2002/debian-ctte-200211/msg00027.html
Hmm, wretched limit
[Sending this to -policy instead of the bug.]
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 06:02:10AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 02:45:36AM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > Speaking of bugs... how do we actually specify that a "should" means e.g.
> > minor, and not normal or important?
>
> I
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 03:27:43AM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 02:01:29AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > Packages that would deserve a bug are those that which have additional
> > > docs
> > > but have registered it only with dhelp or such (ew!) or that have it but
> > >
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 08:26:19PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Josip> Surprisingly enough, we have yet to put any mention of
> Josip> doc-base into the Policy. A lot of the packages that need it
> Josip> use it by now[1], so it appears to be working properly. It
> Josip> would be useful if
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 02:45:36AM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Speaking of bugs... how do we actually specify that a "should" means e.g.
> minor, and not normal or important?
I suggest that the old RFC-style must/should/may syntax be dropped
when policy is next rewritten, in favour of a system whi
>>"Josip" == Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Josip> Surprisingly enough, we have yet to put any mention of
Josip> doc-base into the Policy. A lot of the packages that need it
Josip> use it by now[1], so it appears to be working properly. It
Josip> would be useful if it was "legalized"
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 02:01:29AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Packages that would deserve a bug are those that which have additional docs
> > but have registered it only with dhelp or such (ew!) or that have it but
> > haven't registered it.
>
> It would be cool if somebody could figure out ho
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 02:07:15AM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Packages that would deserve a bug are those that which have additional docs
> but have registered it only with dhelp or such (ew!) or that have it but
> haven't registered it.
It would be cool if somebody could figure out how to fix #1
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 07:16:40PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> That change makes over 90% of the packages on my machine
> >> instantly buggy, for not following a should directive.
>
> Josip> No, it wouldn't. This part of policy wouldn't apply to
> Josip> packages that have nothing to d
>>"Josip" == Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> That change makes over 90% of the packages on my machine
>> instantly buggy, for not following a should directive.
Josip> No, it wouldn't. This part of policy wouldn't apply to
Josip> packages that have nothing to do with it.
Josip
Hi,
>>"Josip" == Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Josip> Surprisingly enough, we have yet to put any mention of
Josip> doc-base into the Policy. A lot of the packages that need it
Josip> use it by now[1], so it appears to be working properly. It
Josip> would be useful if it was "legaliz
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 06:42:37PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Josip> Surprisingly enough, we have yet to put any mention of
> Josip> doc-base into the Policy. A lot of the packages that need it
> Josip> use it by now[1], so it appears to be working properly. It
> Josip> would be useful if
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
Surprisingly enough, we have yet to put any mention of doc-base into the
Policy. A lot of the packages that need it use it by now[1], so it appears
to be working properly. It would be useful if it was "legalized" by the
Policy Manual so that new maint
17 matches
Mail list logo
