On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 10:58:19PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > > Yes, but if I amend the proposal like this, then it needs to be seconded
> > > all over again, doesn't it?
[...]
> Well, they don't invalidate it, but they change it from the one that the
> seconders seconded. How do I know their se
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 11:58:56PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > Yes, but if I amend the proposal like this, then it needs to be seconded
> > all over again, doesn't it?
>
> I don't see why. You need two seconds to go from "proposal" to
> "amendment". To go from "amendment" to "accepted", y
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 04:53:12PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Yes, but if I amend the proposal like this, then it needs to be seconded all
> over again, doesn't it?
I don't see why. You need two seconds to go from "proposal" to
"amendment". To go from "amendment" to "accepted", you need
consen
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 05:41:44PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 01:22:50PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > I would prefer to let this rest until the initial amendment is in Policy,
> > since it's not very easy to get seconds and this amendment is already
> > overdue.
>
>
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 01:22:50PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> I would prefer to let this rest until the initial amendment is in Policy,
> since it's not very easy to get seconds and this amendment is already
> overdue.
Surely it's possible to change a proposed amendment before it is
accepted? Th
retitle 66023 [AMENDMENT 06/05/2001] Treat plugins and shared libraries
differently
thanks
Four developers have seconded this proposal, so according to "3.3 Creating
an Amendment" of policy-process document, this proposal is an amendment.
I'm not sure about the date, the document says "[AMENDMEN
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 66023 [AMENDMENT 06/05/2001] Treat plugins and shared libraries
> differently
Bug#66023: [PROPOSAL] Treat plugins and shared libraries differently
Changed Bug title.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 12:18:46PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I made one posting with such a list, but I've been swamped
> recently. I can start an automated posting of a list; with the master
> list being in policy CVS so that either Julian or I can updfate it;
> people can send me
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 01:03:09PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > Manoj and I are only two people. Handling policy bugs is hard for a
> > number of reasons:
> >
> > (1) There are a lot of them, and many of them are now quite long.
> >
> > (2) We don't have any official editorial rights, so unless
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> +Shared object files (i.e. libsoname.so) that are
>
>Seth Arnold noticed (in a private mail to me) how this stuff in parenthesis
>shouldn't be there (my mistake), because the plugins can be named
>differently -- the file name makes no practical diff
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 11:36:41PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> +to by third party executables (binaries of other packages),
> >> +should be installed in the subdirectories of the
> Richard> ^^^
>
> Richard> I would drop that "the", to make clea
>>"Richard" == Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Richard> On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 12:37:22PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> +to by third party executables (binaries of other packages),
>> +should be installed in the subdirectories of the
Richard>
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 12:37:22PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> +to by third party executables (binaries of other packages),
> +should be installed in the subdirectories of the
^^^
I would drop that "the", to make clear that packages can create
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 12:37:22PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I second this proposal, subject to the typographical and
> grammatical corrections included below.
Thanks. :)
> --- policy.sgml.prevMon Jul 10 11:01:16 2000
>
> +++ policy.sgml Mon J
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hi,
I second this proposal, subject to the typographical and
grammatical corrections included below.
manoj
--- policy.sgml.prevMon Jul 10 11:01:16 2000
+++ policy.sgml Mon Jul 10 11:41:12 2000
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> Pester people on IRC to second ones that you think are good ideas but
Anthony> haven't received any attention.
This should be anyone on this list who is interesterd in the
policy proposals (if you are not interested in policy, why are you
>>"Josip" == Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Josip> Our inability to get this into Policy is appaling, isn't it? :<
You are being too hard on yourself. Putting together a proposal
that gathers seconds is non trivial; one has to convince people of
the rationale, come up with the
quot; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Re: Shared libs vs. plugins.
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], debian-policy@lists.debian.org
>
> I'd prefer if people seconded the diff in #66023 :) and then we can refine
> that stuff
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Can any developer second policy proposals? If so, I second this one too...
(I have a package libwine that puts dynamically-loaded stuff into
/usr/lib/wine)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.75
>
> I'd prefer if people seconded the diff in #66023 :) and then we can refine
> that stuff further if necessary.
>
agreed, let's get this solved.
(Seconded).
- Forwarded message from Oliver Elphick -
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 12:48:12 +0100
From: "Oliver Elphick"
Subject: Re: Old proposals again (Re: [PROPOSAL] Re: Shared libs vs. plugins.)
To: Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECT
t;, debian-policy@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Old proposals again (Re: [PROPOSAL] Re: Shared libs vs. plugins.)
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 12:48:12 +0100
From: "Oliver Elphick"
Josip Rodin wrote:
>Nobody explicitely said they second it, and nobody explicitely said they
>object.
>
&g
(missed this mail in my enormous inbox, sorry :)
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 08:34:43PM -0700, Seth Arnold wrote:
> > They need to be exempt from the rule for shlibs file, too.
> >
> > See my attempt in #66023...
>
> Aye, too true. It may be easier for the proposal to not decide the paths
> involve
Josip Rodin wrote:
>Nobody explicitely said they second it, and nobody explicitely said they
>object.
>
>Several people (mostly maintainers of packages against which lintian barfs
>due to this) have said they would like this change in Policy, but not
>"officially", even though I've aske
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 12:52:10AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > > Wichert, I think "Geez, again?" is the incorrect response to Daniel's
> > > mail. Bugs #42399 and #65345 against debian-policy have been outstanding
> > > for 1 year and 268 days and 322 days. #65345 even has a patch against
> > >
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 08:34:43PM -0700, Seth Arnold wrote:
> proposals. (Though in the section about seconding, it makes especial
> reference to "registered Debian developers". Perhaps for the purposes of
> getting this bug taken care of, simply being An Interested User counts
> for proposals. If
* Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010426 14:54]:
> Our inability to get this into Policy is appaling, isn't it? :<
Especially since both you and Wichert have put effort into this -- that
is two possible seconds for a proposal. I've taken a closer look at the
policy-process text and I do not think
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 12:52:10AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> (2) We don't have any official editorial rights, so unless a proposal
> has been seconded in the standard way, it's difficult to figure
> out what to do with it.
Pester people on IRC to second ones that you think are good ide
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 11:42:41PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > Wichert, I think "Geez, again?" is the incorrect response to Daniel's
> > mail. Bugs #42399 and #65345 against debian-policy have been outstanding
> > for 1 year and 268 days and 322 days. #65345 even has a patch against
> > lintian,
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 02:13:41PM -0700, Seth Arnold wrote:
> > > For now I added a lintian overrides for this, but Sean asked me to bring
> > > up
> > > discussion here to clarify what lintian should treat as shared lib in the
> > > future in order to properly solve this issue.
> >
> > Geez, ag
* Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010426 11:18]:
> Previously Daniel Kobras wrote:
> > For now I added a lintian overrides for this, but Sean asked me to bring up
> > discussion here to clarify what lintian should treat as shared lib in the
> > future in order to properly solve this issue.
>
Previously Daniel Kobras wrote:
> For now I added a lintian overrides for this, but Sean asked me to bring up
> discussion here to clarify what lintian should treat as shared lib in the
> future in order to properly solve this issue.
Geez, again? Basically a .so files that is not in /lib, /usr/lib
Moi!
In the process of packaging the sound editor glame, I noticed this
small issue: Glame (and other packages like xmms for example) makes use
of plugins that are dlopen()ed on demand at runtime. Those plugins are
compiled and linked as shared libs, but obviously, one does not want to
create a sh
33 matches
Mail list logo
