On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 03:45:59AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 05:22:59PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > If not, I object to any change in the priority system until we achieve
> > a consistent system with the current priorities.
> Heh. I don't think we can get a consis
In general, I like the names and descriptions better than what we have
currently. However, I see a problem with the criterion for "getting
something into common". It is likely that some maintainers will take
it as an insult to have their package "demoted" to common, and to
> I'd think a restricti
On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 05:22:59PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > If you convince the ftp.debian.org maintainers to fix *all* the bugs
> > (not only those of important severity), fine.
>
> This isn't just a matter of having the ftpmasters finally get ar
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 05:22:59PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Anthony Towns:
> > For woody, it'd be nice if we could use the Priority field consistently.
> It would be even nicer if we could use the override file consistently,
Well, yes, that too, obviously.
>Packages may not depend on pac
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 11:03:26AM -0500, Bob Hilliard wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > It could be used something like:
> > * nothing in optional or above can conflict
> I think this would be a mistake. This would make all MTAs,
> except the one anointed as standard, become extra.
In
Anthony Towns:
> For woody, it'd be nice if we could use the Priority field consistently.
It would be even nicer if we could use the override file consistently,
but it seems there is not enough ftp.debian.org manpower to fix the
wrong priorities. I refer to this rule in policy:
Packages may no
Anthony Towns writes:
> It could be used something like:
>
> * nothing in optional or above can conflict
I think this would be a mistake. This would make all MTAs,
except the one anointed as standard, become extra. I think conflicts
should be permitted in common, optional and extra
On Friday 15 December 2000 15:10, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I'd think a restriction something like ``all `common' packages must be
> included in at least one task'', which means they only get to be common
> if they can convince one of the task maintainers to include their package.
So this is not a su
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 02:57:43PM +0100, Mariusz Przygodzki wrote:
> On Friday 15 December 2000 13:58, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > For woody, it'd be nice if we could use the Priority field consistently.
> > What do people think of something like:
> > common (new)
> > -- Everything th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 15 December 2000 13:58, Anthony Towns wrote:
> For woody, it'd be nice if we could use the Priority field consistently.
> What do people think of something like:
[snip]
> common (new)
> -- Everything that can be installed
Hello world,
For woody, it'd be nice if we could use the Priority field consistently.
What do people think of something like:
required
-- Essential packages and things they depend on. If you
remove these (and don't replace them with something
11 matches
Mail list logo
