> Hi,
> >>"Jim" == Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Why should this be distinct from filing the bug report against
> >> policy?
>
> Jim> Because it doesn't necessarily follow that if a package has a
> Jim> conflict with policy then policy is flawed.
>
> Really? Why not?
Because it
Hi,
>>"Jim" == Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Why should this be distinct from filing the bug report against
>> policy?
Jim> Because it doesn't necessarily follow that if a package has a
Jim> conflict with policy then policy is flawed.
Really? Why not? I think it should be decreed t
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, in part:
> Martin Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(some parts deleted)
> > Similar to the way we request developers to notify debian-devel about
> > an intent to create a package, I think we should ask them to notify
> > debian-policy about a potential pol
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'd like to suggest that the issue be raised on debian-policy at some
> > stage, preferably before the package was released.
>
> Indeed, debian-policy should get all bug reports filed against policy.
> I'd prefer that the list be registered as the main
Bob Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMHO it would be better to use debian-policy for all policy
> related matters, but far too many developers feel they don't have time
> to subscribe to debian-policy, but then complain bitterly that policy
> was adopted without their input.
Probably be
Hi,
Martin Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd like to suggest that the issue be raised on debian-policy at some
^
> stage, preferably before the package was released. Similar to the way we
> request developers to notify debian-
Martin Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to suggest that the issue be raised on debian-policy at some
> stage, preferably before the package was released.
Indeed, debian-policy should get all bug reports filed against policy.
I'd prefer that the list be registered as the maintainer f
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> This is the second draft of this document <<
>
> I think I've waited long enough for comments on the points where I asked
> questions. Which is to say: I'm winging it.
>
> If there are no substantial comments on this for a while, it'll
> probably be t
>> This is the second draft of this document <<
I think I've waited long enough for comments on the points where I asked
questions. Which is to say: I'm winging it.
I've incorporated, to some degree, comments from Manoj Srivastav, Buddah
Buck, J. Ray Dassen (?), and Dale Scheetz. I've also spent
Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Reading your draft, I see discussion of the importance of the goals,
> but not the importance of the standards -- or at least, not in as many
> words.
Fair enough.
Do you think the small change you recommended satisfy this need? Or are
you asking for some
> >>This is a draft.<<
>
> I've written a document which touches on what I feel are important
> meta-policy issues. It's a little bit of history, a little bit of
> speculation, and a bit of an essay on how I think of debian.
>
> I'm sure other people have different ideas. I hope none of what
>
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, when Debian was formed it had only one developer,
> and no one could contribute packages, since that would have diluted
> the distributions tight integration. This bazaar thing has evolved.
My memory doesn't extend back that far, nor
Hi,
Actually, when Debian was formed it had only one developer,
and no one could contribute packages, since that would have diluted
the distributions tight integration. This bazaar thing has evolved.
"If you find yourself having to do something which seems to
conflict w
>>This is a draft.<<
I've written a document which touches on what I feel are important
meta-policy issues. It's a little bit of history, a little bit of
speculation, and a bit of an essay on how I think of debian.
I'm sure other people have different ideas. I hope none of what
I've written mak
14 matches
Mail list logo
