On 27-Mar-01, 23:57 (CST), Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 09:35:36AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > Encouraging I could agree with, particularly when the check could be
> > automated against the Packages file. But even an automated check against
> > the maintainer scripts is no
On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 09:35:36AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 25-Mar-01, 04:26 (CST), Anthony Towns wrote:
> > If you create a "must" directive, then you've just created a reason to
> > have a number of extra RC bugs. Indeed, that's the only point of making
> > it a "must" instead of a "s
On 25-Mar-01, 04:26 (CST), Anthony Towns wrote:
> If you create a "must" directive, then you've just created a reason to
> have a number of extra RC bugs. Indeed, that's the only point of making
> it a "must" instead of a "should".
The point of making a "must" requirement is that the consequence
On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 09:39:56PM +1000, Jason Parker wrote:
> Seth Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > * Anthony Towns [010325 02:30]:
> > > There's 6720 packages in sid/i386 at the moment, btw, not 8458.
> > Thanks for the correction. At ten seconds per package, this is still
> > nearly nine
Seth Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Anthony Towns [010325 02:30]:
> > There's 6720 packages in sid/i386 at the moment, btw, not 8458.
> Thanks for the correction. At ten seconds per package, this is still
> nearly nineteen hours though.
Luckily we have these marvellous contraptions calle
* Anthony Towns [010325 02:30]:
> If you're not going to bother filing the RC bugs, there's no reason
> not to leave it as a "should". If you are going to file the RC bugs,
> then someone's got to figure out which packages it applies to at some
> point anyway.
This makes sense if one assumes that
On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 04:44:37AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > Why would dosemu need to be removed from the distribution?
> > Because that's what violating a "must" directive *means*. It's the sole
> > difference between "should" and "must": either's a bug, but if it's a
> > "must" the pac
On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 01:46:59AM -0800, Seth Arnold wrote:
> * Anthony Towns [010325 01:11]:
> > BTW, I'm inclined to think it'd be a good idea for people who want to add
> > a "must" requirement (or to change a should to a must) to include a list of
> > packages that would need to be removed fr
On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 07:21:29PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 04:18:55AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 07:04:53PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Certainly, having split packages would make it *easier* to cope with this,
> > > and that's a g
* Anthony Towns [010325 01:11]:
> BTW, I'm inclined to think it'd be a good idea for people who want to add
> a "must" requirement (or to change a should to a must) to include a list of
> packages that would need to be removed from the distribution due to the
> change. Anyone agree/disagree?
Whil
On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 04:18:55AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 07:04:53PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Certainly, having split packages would make it *easier* to cope with this,
> > and that's a good reason to make it policy, but it's not enough of a reason
> > to re
On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 07:04:53PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Certainly, having split packages would make it *easier* to cope with this,
> and that's a good reason to make it policy, but it's not enough of a reason
> to remove dosemu from the distribution. IMO.
Why would dosemu need to be remov
On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 07:07:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 03:08:30AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > * Some rewording to reflect the new must/should/may policy.
>
> BTW, I'm inclined to think it'd be a good idea for people who want to add
> a "must" requirement (o
On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 03:57:37AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 06:29:47PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 03:08:30AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > * Some rewording to reflect the new must/should/may policy.
> > This seems like a good idea,
On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 03:08:30AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> * Some rewording to reflect the new must/should/may policy.
BTW, I'm inclined to think it'd be a good idea for people who want to add
a "must" requirement (or to change a should to a must) to include a list of
packages that would
On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 06:29:47PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 03:08:30AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > * Some rewording to reflect the new must/should/may policy.
>
> > - Fonts of any type supported by the X Window System
> > - should be be in a
On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 03:08:30AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> * Some rewording to reflect the new must/should/may policy.
> - Fonts of any type supported by the X Window System
> - should be be in a separate binary package from any
> - executables, librari
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.2.0
Severity: wishlist
* Reflects changes in policy due to issues Anton Zinoviev pointed out with
mkfontdir; we now require packages to invoke "update-fonts-dir" instead
of calling mkfontdir directly. This means that all commands that
maintainer scripts i
18 matches
Mail list logo
