On Wed, Aug 18, 1999 at 11:52:35AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 1999 at 02:28:36PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Hello Technical Committee.
> > This message from Wichert was posted nearly two weeks ago.
> Yes.
Now over three weeks ago.
> > Which is the current state of things?
>
I'm replying to two at once here, in the interest of efficiency.
Chris Waters wrote:
> Yes, that's why I suggest that we wait till after Potato, and start
> the changeover at the *beginning* of a release cycle. That way we
> have as much time as possible.
That was the plan the previous two relea
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That last sentence is an error. When all packages have moved to
> /usr/share/doc, we can drop the symlink handling code from the
> postinst and prerm, with no loss.
Er, no, not if the symlink handling is *in* the postinst/prerm. If
it's there, then
Anthony Towns writes:
> > As long as all the docs are in the
> > same place in a stable release, who *cares* what kind of ugliness was
> > involved in moving them? Unstable is *supposed* to be, er, unstable.
> Most of us have a certain selfish interest it keeping unstable as pleasant
> as possi
On Thu, Aug 19, 1999 at 12:54:35AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > [1 ]
> > On Wed, Aug 18, 1999 at 04:25:48PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > > First of all, I'm still not convinced that this is a technical issue,
> > > as I mentioned in my objection to Manoj's proposal.
> > "How do we keep all th
Chris Waters wrote:
> *None* of the proposals (I think we're up to four now) seem to have
> *major* problems. However, the symlinks seem unnecessary to me,
> *unless* we want to make unstable more consistent, at the cost of
> making stable somewhat uglier, and unless we want to add *permanent*
> o
Anthony Towns writes:
> [1 ]
> On Wed, Aug 18, 1999 at 04:25:48PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > First of all, I'm still not convinced that this is a technical issue,
> > as I mentioned in my objection to Manoj's proposal.
> "How do we keep all the documentation `together' while we physically
On Wed, Aug 18, 1999 at 04:25:48PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> First of all, I'm still not convinced that this is a technical issue,
> as I mentioned in my objection to Manoj's proposal.
"How do we keep all the documentation `together' while we physically move
it from /usr/doc to /usr/share/doc?
Raul Miller wrote:
> The argument is that there may be user authored programs or procedures
> which use the (admittedly simple) /usr/doc interface.
Not may, are. To whit: dwww and, all web servers that follow policy and
export http://localhost/doc
--
see shy jo
On Wed, Aug 18, 1999 at 04:25:48PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> First of all, I'm still not convinced that this is a technical issue,
> as I mentioned in my objection to Manoj's proposal. The information
> is just as available whether it's found in one location or two, so
> I don't see any technica
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (3) The message from Wichert was incomplete -- the technical committee
> does not do detailed design work. However, two people have stepped
> up with proposals to address that lack. Briefly: Manoj Srivasta
> has proposed a mechanism which would allow us
On Wed, Aug 18, 1999 at 02:28:36PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Hello Technical Committee.
>
> This message from Wichert was posted nearly two weeks ago.
Yes.
> Which is the current state of things?
(1) The technical committee does not have a chairman yet, so is not
able to properly vote on an
On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, Wichert Akkerman - Debian Project Leader wrote:
> [...]
> Luckily the constitution provides us with a way to solve this: the
> Technical Committee can be asked to decide on a strategy which people
> will have to follow. I hereby ask them to study this and come up with a
> strat
13 matches
Mail list logo
