Hi,
>>"Joseph" == Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joseph> But it has been abused, quite seriously. Popularity contests
Joseph> HAVE been used to defeat sound technical solution to a purely
Joseph> technical problem. Given that the policy guidelines are not
Joseph> meant to resolve
On Fri, Aug 06, 1999 at 11:57:16AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> 2) People used the `formal objection' mechanism to stop the answer just
> >> because the didn't like. I don't think this was right. And the people who
> >> did it are starting to realize that too.. =)
>
> Joseph> too-many-c
Hi,
>>"Joseph" == Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 2) People used the `formal objection' mechanism to stop the answer just
>> because the didn't like. I don't think this was right. And the people who
>> did it are starting to realize that too.. =)
Joseph> too-many-chiefs syndrome,
> > Having a prerm script for a long time is a bad thing? a price too
> > high? come on!
>
> I've currently got 2112 files in my /var/lib/dpkg/rules directory. It
> takes 10-50 seconds to read that directory if it's not already cached.
> The situation will only get worse as new packages are added
> Nicolás> And this was handled pretty bad:
>
> Nicolás> 1) The update to the policy was obviously bad. It needed
> Nicolás>more discussion. Bad for the policy editors.
>
> What policy editors? There aren't any who have editorial
> power. And your comment is the reason why. Sorr
On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 09:49:49PM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
> > Then someone needs to come up with a solution, NOW. Not in a month, not
> > in three months, not after we release potato. I don't like having two doc
> > directories to look in either, but we seem to be running out of other
>
Hi,
>>"Nicolás" == Nicolás Lichtmaier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Nicolás> And this was handled pretty bad:
Nicolás> 1) The update to the policy was obviously bad. It needed
Nicolás>more discussion. Bad for the policy editors.
What policy editors? There aren't any who have editor
On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 09:49:49PM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
> 2) People used the `formal objection' mechanism to stop the answer just
> because the didn't like. I don't think this was right. And the people who
> did it are starting to realize that too.. =)
I don't think that all the object
> > > I'm almost at the point that I'm ready to agree with the small and growing
> > > group of people who are saying screw the transition---the only thing it
> > > really hurts is /usr/doc/pac and being a creature of habit that
> > > annoys me. But I'd deal with it.
> >
> > I think this is the
On Sun, Aug 01, 1999 at 06:42:36PM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
> > I'm almost at the point that I'm ready to agree with the small and growing
> > group of people who are saying screw the transition---the only thing it
> > really hurts is /usr/doc/pac and being a creature of habit that
> > anno
> I'm almost at the point that I'm ready to agree with the small and growing
> group of people who are saying screw the transition---the only thing it
> really hurts is /usr/doc/pac and being a creature of habit that
> annoys me. But I'd deal with it.
I think this is the whole problem with this
Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can we have a proposal to ammend policy to not use /usr/share/doc until
> we have a working transition mechanism in place?
Yes, thank you, that is exactly what I'm planning to propose. I'm
just trying to clear up a couple of last-minute details.
Expe
On Sun, Aug 01, 1999 at 09:32:25AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> > All arguments aside, we're running out of options (especially since there
> > are a dozen proposals and everyone seems to be formally objecting to every
> > proposal that isn't theirs ...)
>
> Can we have a proposal to ammend polic
On Sun, Aug 01, 1999 at 01:18:24AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> Otherwise I don't see that we have options here. There is no technical
> reason we can't just forget the transition. The tools can be modified to
> look for docs in both places and (I guess?) already have been in some
> cases. If a
On Sat, Jul 31, 1999 at 10:32:51PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Modify dpkg-buildpackage to handle FHS move (#41729)
> * Proposed by Julian Gilbey.
> * Another /usr/share/doc transition proposal. This one is to make
> dpkg-buildpackage move /usr/doc to /usr/share/doc when a package
> is bu
Here's what's been happening on debian-policy this week.
This is a two week summary. Note that policy 3.0.1.0 has been
released. The changes are minor.
Note: for details of the policy process, see
http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/policy/ch3.html. Also, this summary is
available on the web at http:
16 matches
Mail list logo
