Has this proposal been effectively rejected?
Julian
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, QMW, Univ. of London. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://www.debian.org/~jdg
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> The current Policy manual says almost nothing about the README.Debian file. I
> suggest to add a section 6.8 (in the "Documentation" chapter) or something
> like that:
>
> 6.8 README.Debian
>
> Your package may contain a /usr/share/doc/package/README.Debian file.
I
On Fri, Aug 06, 1999 at 03:24:26PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > Oh. I just didn't see any reason why a sysadmin would particularly care
> > unless they were about to recompile it.
> I agree with Richard Braakman: you have two sort of compile
> options. Those who were necessary to build bu
On Friday 6 August 1999, at 23 h 2, the keyboard of Anthony Towns
wrote:
> Oh. I just didn't see any reason why a sysadmin would particularly care
> unless they were about to recompile it.
I agree with Richard Braakman: you have two sort of compile options. Those who
were necessary to build b
On Fri, Aug 06, 1999 at 03:04:13PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> I've missed this line, sorry. Isn't it strange to have technical information
> like this one in a "copyright" file?
Not at all. Changes made to a program are very much an issue of
copyright.
> Who will have the idea to read
> "Stephane" == Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Stephane> The current Policy manual says almost nothing about the
Stephane> README.Debian file. I suggest to add a section 6.8 (in
Stephane> the "Documentation" chapter) or something like that:
Stephane> 6.8 READM
On Friday 6 August 1999, at 15 h 59, the keyboard of Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How does this relate to the second paragraph of section "6.5 Copyright
> information"?
I've missed this line, sorry. Isn't it strange to have technical information
like this one in a "copyri
On Fri, Aug 06, 1999 at 02:40:06PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>>> - the rationale for choosing such or such options in the debian/rules when
>>> calling configure and/or make.
>> Why shouldn't this simply be in the debian/rules file where it's convenient,
> Hmmm, because debian/rules is rea
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> Your package may contain a /usr/share/doc/package/README.Debian
> file. It is mandatory to have one if you modified the source code of
> the upstream package.
Ah... I smell a Lintian check :-)
I second this proposal, by the way. It looks interesting.
> This file sho
Please, write shorter lines!
On Fri, Aug 06, 1999 at 02:40:06PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> I don't think we should write the Policy by taking into account
> changes which will be integrated in the next twenty years.
Build-time dependencies can be implemented right now, as soon as we
agr
On Fri, Aug 06, 1999 at 11:59:38AM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> - the changes you made for the Debian package.
How does this relate to the second paragraph of section "6.5 Copyright
information"?
In addition, the copyright file must say where the upstream sources
(if any) were ob
On Friday 6 August 1999, at 22 h 21, the keyboard of Anthony Towns
wrote:
> I'd prefer to just say it should document these changes, rather than make
> it mandatory. :-/
I was thinking about the huge flame-war, both on debian-devel and on the News,
triggered by a paranoiac upstream maintainer
On Fri, Aug 06, 1999 at 11:59:38AM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> The current Policy manual says almost nothing about the README.Debian file. I
> suggest to add a section 6.8 (in the "Documentation" chapter) or something
> like that:
>
> 6.8 README.Debian
Something to this effect should de
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.0.1.0
Severity: wishlist
[Cc: me if you reply, I'm not on debian-policy.]
The current Policy manual says almost nothing about the README.Debian file. I
suggest to add a section 6.8 (in the "Documentation" chapter) or something
l
14 matches
Mail list logo
