On 26 Jun 2006, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Frank Küster writes ("Re: Bug#375502: debian-policy must clarify how
> sub-policies should be managed"):
>> For a document called "Debian-Foo-Policy" to be part of The Debian
>> Policy it must be included in 1.4. If
Manoj,
can you please comment on that?
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> George Danchev writes ("Bug#375502: debian-policy must clarify how
> sub-policies should be managed"):
>> If there is no `official policy process' then what justifies the presen
George Danchev writes ("Bug#375502: debian-policy must clarify how sub-policies
should be managed"):
> If there is no `official policy process' then what justifies the presence of
> policy-process.sgml and /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/policy-process.*
> respectivel
On Tuesday 27 June 2006 13:46, Frank Küster wrote:
--cut--
> > Why do you think "are all normative and authoritative", is not correct,
> > if sub-policies are part of debian-policy or referenced to by the above
> > mentioned 1.4 debian-policy paragraph ?
>
> Sorry, I misparsed this sentence, or rat
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 June 2006 12:19, Frank Küster wrote:
>> George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > The sub-policy documents either can be part of this debian-policy
>> > document or referenced to by this paragraph. They are maintained by their
>> > aut
On Tuesday 27 June 2006 12:19, Frank Küster wrote:
> George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The sub-policy documents either can be part of this debian-policy
> > document or referenced to by this paragraph. They are maintained by their
> > authors and are all normative and authoritative.
>
>
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The sub-policy documents either can be part of this debian-policy document or
> referenced to by this paragraph. They are maintained by their authors and are
> all normative and authoritative.
I don't think the last part, " are all normative and autho
On Tuesday 27 June 2006 10:10, George Danchev wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 June 2006 01:43, Chris Waters wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 06:05:17PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > > What you tend to disagree with ? I'm asking for clarification how
> > > sub-policies must be handled, and this must be
On Tuesday 27 June 2006 01:43, Chris Waters wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 06:05:17PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > What you tend to disagree with ? I'm asking for clarification how
> > sub-policies must be handled, and this must be stipulated by the
> > debian-policy.
>
> Why must it be stipu
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 06:05:17PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> What you tend to disagree with ? I'm asking for clarification how
> sub-policies must be handled, and this must be stipulated by the
> debian-policy.
Why must it be stipulated by debian-policy?
Official policy is only required w
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frank Küster writes ("Re: Bug#375502: debian-policy must clarify how
> sub-policies should be managed"):
>> I tend to disagree. A sub-policy should only be part of the
>> debian-policy package, and installed in /usr/sh
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frank Küster writes ("Re: Bug#375502: debian-policy must clarify how
> sub-policies should be managed"):
>> For a document called "Debian-Foo-Policy" to be part of The Debian
>> Policy it must be included in 1.4
Frank Küster writes ("Re: Bug#375502: debian-policy must clarify how
sub-policies should be managed"):
> For a document called "Debian-Foo-Policy" to be part of The Debian
> Policy it must be included in 1.4. If it is not included there, it is
> not mandatory policy.
On Monday 26 June 2006 19:10, Ian Jackson wrote:
> George Danchev writes ("Bug#375502: debian-policy must clarify how
sub-policies should be managed"):
> > The current paragraphs of #1.4, #11.9, #11.9 show perl-policy as
> > a part debian-policy package and emacs-pol
George Danchev writes ("Bug#375502: debian-policy must clarify how sub-policies
should be managed"):
> The current paragraphs of #1.4, #11.9, #11.9 show perl-policy as
> a part debian-policy package and emacs-policy as a separate package.
> I think that all sub-policies sho
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 26 June 2006 17:37, Frank Küster wrote:
>> George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Package: debian-policy
>> > Version: 3.7.2.1
>> > Severity: wishlist
>> >
>> > The current paragraphs of #1.4, #11.9, #11.9 show perl-policy as
>> > a par
On Monday 26 June 2006 17:37, Frank Küster wrote:
> George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Package: debian-policy
> > Version: 3.7.2.1
> > Severity: wishlist
> >
> > The current paragraphs of #1.4, #11.9, #11.9 show perl-policy as
> > a part debian-policy package and emacs-policy as a separa
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.7.2.1
> Severity: wishlist
>
> The current paragraphs of #1.4, #11.9, #11.9 show perl-policy as
> a part debian-policy package and emacs-policy as a separate package.
> I think that all sub-policies should obey same ru
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.7.2.1
Severity: wishlist
The current paragraphs of #1.4, #11.9, #11.9 show perl-policy as
a part debian-policy package and emacs-policy as a separate package.
I think that all sub-policies should obey same rules, e.g. each of them
to be managed in a separate packa
19 matches
Mail list logo
