On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 04:20:00PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 03:41:34PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > I read through the policy document today, trying to nitpick and find
> > > things
> > > that have changed in current practice. Here's what I fou
Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Not quite: if you created /usr/local/lib/gobble, then on package
> purge/removal, you may
> rmdir /usr/local/lib/gobble 2>/dev/null || true
> but you may not rmdir /usr/local/lib even if /usr/local/lib didn't
> exist when you installed the package.
Ok, that makes sense.
-
Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 03:41:34PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> > I read through the policy document today, trying to nitpick and find things
> > that have changed in current practice. Here's what I found:
> >
> > * The policy manual uses the term "section" to refer to main,
On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 09:58:46AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > * This seems self-contradictory. Are you supposed to remove the created
> > directories or not?
> >
> > However, the package should create empty directories below
> > `/usr/local' so that the system administrator knows wher
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On a completely different subject, I'm not so sure that TeX and LaTeX
> should really be standard. I know that they're commonly found on Unix
> systems, but so is X. X was excluded from standard, I think, partly
> because of its size and partly becaus
On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 09:13:44AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > On a completely different subject, I'm not so sure that TeX and LaTeX
> > > should really be standard. [reasons snipped]
>
> LaTex, I agree. TeX, maybe -- I'd like to see your reasons.
Splitting TeX and LaTeX in the current setup
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 03:41:34PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> * "Every package must have exactly one maintainer at a time." This statement
>is violated by so many packages (including dpkg) that it should be removed.
I think it's being interpreted as "one maintainer email address". But
you're r
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So, I propose the following compromise:
> >
> > * Downgrade xfree86-common and xlib6g from standard to optional; AND
> > * Modify section 5.8 to say that creating X and non-X versions of a
> > package is permissible *ONLY* if the non-X versi
On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 12:08:07PM +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> "Category" sounds a bit as if it was refering to the function of the
> packages. I'd suggest "area". With "distribution" I'd connected those
> thingies like "slink" or "bo".
"area" also has the advantage of being consistent terminolo
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 03:41:34PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> > I read through the policy document today, trying to nitpick and find things
> > that have changed in current practice. Here's what I found:
> >
> > * The policy manual uses the term "secti
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 03:41:34PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> I read through the policy document today, trying to nitpick and find things
> that have changed in current practice. Here's what I found:
>
> * The policy manual uses the term "section" to refer to main, non-us,
> non-free, and contrib.
I read through the policy document today, trying to nitpick and find things
that have changed in current practice. Here's what I found:
* The policy manual uses the term "section" to refer to main, non-us,
non-free, and contrib. This overloads the term since we typically call
games, libs, docs
12 matches
Mail list logo
