Hi,
>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian> Joey Hess writes ("Bug#30036: debian-policy could include emacs policy"):
Ian> ...
>> I think we should move the menu hierarchy out of the menu documentation and
>> into pol
Hi,
[Sorry for the long delay; real life has a tendency to obtrude]
>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian> Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Bug#30036: debian-policy could include
emacs policy"):
Ian> ...
>> Straw man.
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Both you and Manoj have used the phrase `weight of policy'. Can you
> explain what this means please ?
>
> Debian's policy documents do not exist to give people a bigger hammer
> to hit recalcitrant opponents over the head with.
But putting items in the policy manual does te
Joey Hess writes ("Bug#30036: debian-policy could include emacs policy"):
...
> I think we should move the menu hierarchy out of the menu documentation and
> into policy. It is something that could benefit from being maintained by the
> policy list, and it needs the weight of
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Bug#30036: debian-policy could include emacs
policy"):
...
> Straw man. No one has said anything about dictating how
> programs work. All that has been proposed is standardization of
> interfaces between programs that has been left to the w
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I would like to further clarify my stance on this issue.
>
> For what it's worth, I think I understand your stance and have for a while.
> I just disagree with it.
Me too
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I would like to further clarify my stance on this issue.
For what it's worth, I think I understand your stance and have for a while.
I just disagree with it.
--
see shy jo
Hi,
I would like to further clarify my stance on this issue. I
want policy to document whatever it takes for other packages to
interface with the package in question, once that interface spec has
stabilized. In other words, you violate policy, people can file bugs
against you.
Hi,
>>"Darren" == Darren Benham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Darren> I think we've got a few issues here...
Darren> One is an authors control over their own code. For example,
Darren> IWJ basicly (co-?) owns dpkg. Debian-policy should not have
Darren> any power to dictate what an author doe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I think we've got a few issues here...
One is an authors control over their own code. For example, IWJ basicly (co-?)
owns dpkg. Debian-policy should not have any power to dictate what an author
does with his own code, including dpkg. On the other hand, no pa
Hi,
>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian> Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Bug#30036: debian-policy could include
emacs policy"):
>> Hi,
>> >>"Adam" == Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
Santiago Vila wrote:
> > I think this is an absolutely dreadful idea.
> >
> > Technical decisions should be made by the relevant experts, according
> > to their own views, and matching the code that they have written or
> > plan to write.
> >
> > So, in this example, the menu policy should remain
On Thu, 14 Jan 1999, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Bug#30036: debian-policy could include emacs
> policy"):
> > Hi,
> > >>"Adam" == Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Adam> I still don'
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Bug#30036: debian-policy could include emacs
policy"):
> Hi,
> >>"Adam" == Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Adam> I still don't really understand what is intended by moving
> Adam> sub-polici
Hi,
>>"Zed" == Zed Pobre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Zed> On Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 12:29:29AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>
>> If no one participates, then surely Debian shall fall by the
>> roadside.
Zed> It's two weeks before finals. Give us a break. I recall a nice
Zed> mess
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It is not the job of policy maintainers to take a bug to the
> final acceptance. It is the responsibility of this mailing list, and
> quite frankly, most people on this mailing list have been doing
> little but tal
Hi,
>>"Adam" == Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Adam> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, James LewisMoss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>> Everyone changes policy based on discussion here.
Adam> Um, kinda. You have to go though a whole *process*.
Yes, everyon has to go through
Hi,
>>"Adam" == Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Adam> I still don't really understand what is intended by moving
Adam> sub-policies into the policy manual. Is it intended that the Debian
Adam> Policy group take editorial control over the documents?
Yes. If it is important e
Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Look, I love the new system for maintaining Policy. I lobbied hard
> for it. But this system is *barely* able to keep up with the course
> of changes for the Packaging Manual and the Debian Policy. You can
> try to deny this is true but it is. Bugs a
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, James LewisMoss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Everyone changes policy based on discussion here.
Um, kinda. You have to go though a whole *process*.
Is Manoj proposing that this process be applied to these sub-policies.
No clear answer yet...
Adam> Are you really
> On 29 Nov 1998 14:31:09 -0500, Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Adam> I still don't really understand what is intended by moving
Adam> sub-policies into the policy manual. Is it intended that the
Adam> Debian Policy group take editorial control over the documents?
Adam> Does the
I still don't really understand what is intended by moving
sub-policies into the policy manual. Is it intended that the Debian
Policy group take editorial control over the documents? Does the
package maintainer lose the ability to change the document, unless
they are also a policy editor?
More
Hi,
>>"Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joey> If it can't be split, I'd rather the developers had to do a little extra
Joey> work to get the menu docs, instead of the users having to do extra work.
Joey> But I agree with you on general principals, this is just a technical
Joey>
Joey Hess wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > You misunderstand me. I never intended to subsume menu.sgml
> > into policy.sgml, you have correctly come up with some reasons why
> > that would be silly.
> >
> > Have I satisfied your objections?
>
> Yes.
Unfortunately, I've come up with
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> You misunderstand me. I never intended to subsume menu.sgml
> into policy.sgml, you have correctly come up with some reasons why
> that would be silly.
>
> Have I satisfied your objections?
Yes.
--
see shy jo
Hi,
>>"Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joey> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I disagree. If a document is indeed carrying the weight of
>> policy, I would like to see it in one place, rather than having to
>> install a gazillion packages and hunting for the document in
>> question.
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I disagree. If a document is indeed carrying the weight of
> policy, I would like to see it in one place, rather than having to
> install a gazillion packages and hunting for the document in
> question.
>
> b) The sub policy documents should not be at the whim o
Hi,
>>"Adam" == Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Adam> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>> The idea is that while sub policy documents are being hammered
>> out, they remain in an xternal document under control of the authors
>> of the sub
[Manoj, why do you never CC the bug report? Annoying.]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi
>>> "Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Santiago> Would there be any objection to including the content of
Santiago> debian-emacs-policy.gz
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is the emacsen sub policy sufficiently stabilized that it can
> become a bona fide policy document, and thus get greater exposure?
We've got, what, at least ten or twelve packages using it. I'd say
that if it's not stabilized, we have a proble
Hi
>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Santiago> Would there be any objection to including the content of
Santiago> debian-emacs-policy.gz into the policy itself, instead of
Santiago> this reference?
The idea is that while sub policy documents are being
hammered
Package: debian-policy
Version: 2.5.0.0
Severity: wishlist
5.8 Emacs lisp programs
Please refer to the `Debian Emacs Policy' (documented in
debian-emacs-policy.gz of the emacsen-common package) for details of
how to package emacs lisp programs.
Would there be any objection to including
32 matches
Mail list logo
