Re: egcc maintainer

1998-12-11 Thread Branden Robinson
On Thu, Dec 10, 1998 at 01:47:53PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Instead, "Compiler maintenance group" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and > "Debian boot floppies team" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> should be > used. > > I wholehartedly agree that multi-maintainer groups should have a single > responsible person,

Proposal: a more general and flexible appoach of packages.

1998-12-11 Thread joost
Hi, On Thu, 10 Dec 1998, Martin Schulze wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] should be a valid address. Would > that be sufficient for you? "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ? **dazzle** With an email address like that, there must be a great idea behind it :-) Seriously, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] and

Re: egcc maintainer

1998-12-11 Thread joost
Hi, On Thu, 10 Dec 1998, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Instead, "Compiler maintenance group" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and > > "Debian boot floppies team" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> should be > > used. > > You have a chicken & egg problem here: @packages.debian.org just p

RE: Proposal: a more general and flexible appoach of packages.

1998-12-11 Thread Shaleh
Nifty idea. Kinda like it. My only beef is that the "user" must know to mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] rather than [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not a big issue I know. But you get my meaning. I know Brian will be thankful for having an Imlib mailing list. Could we extend this one more step a

Re: Proposal: a more general and flexible appoach of packages.

1998-12-11 Thread Martin Schulze
Howdy Joost, some issues of your proposel are already working. Every package can have a mailing list referenced through [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is already working for over a year. Requirements: a) Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the maintainer field of package foo. b) Creat

Re: Proposal: a more general and flexible appoach of packages.

1998-12-11 Thread Martin Schulze
Shaleh wrote: > Nifty idea. Kinda like it. My only beef is that the "user" must know to mail > [EMAIL PROTECTED] rather than [EMAIL PROTECTED] or > [EMAIL PROTECTED] There is a cute mechanism that [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] both work, so for regular libraries this issue is resolved.

RE: Proposal: a more general and flexible appoach of packages.

1998-12-11 Thread joost
Hi, On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, Shaleh wrote: > Nifty idea. Kinda like it. My only beef is that the "user" must know to mail > [EMAIL PROTECTED] rather than [EMAIL PROTECTED] or > [EMAIL PROTECTED] True. But I don't think that using [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] as an alias for exactly these

Re: Proposal: a more general and flexible appoach of packages.

1998-12-11 Thread joost
Hi, On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, Martin Schulze wrote: > some issues of your proposel are already working. Every package can have > a mailing list referenced through [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is already > working for over a year. Yes, I know. But part of my point was that the way it works now is a bit o

Re: Proposal: a more general and flexible appoach of packages.

1998-12-11 Thread Martin Schulze
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > a) Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the maintainer field > > of package foo. > > That still leaves in the dependency on the physical maintainer. It also > makes the information in the Packages file authoritative for the > maintainer information. Thi

RE: Proposal: a more general and flexible appoach of packages.

1998-12-11 Thread Darren Benham
OOps... took out the wrong addresses in the CC field... When maintainer's change, who's going to change the subscription list? The physical maintainer's via a "(un)subscribe" message? That would still leave things in the hands of a physical maintainer... Automaticly from a package upload would s

Re: Proposal: a more general and flexible appoach of packages.

1998-12-11 Thread Brian Almeida
On Fri, Dec 11, 1998 at 10:33:02AM -0500, Shaleh wrote: > I know Brian will be thankful for having an Imlib mailing list. Ugh. Fortunately Imlib is, for the most part, a well-behaved package. Even if the bug reports I get for it do give me chest pains sometimes...;) > Could we extend this one mor

Re: Proposal: a more general and flexible appoach of packages.

1998-12-11 Thread Brian Almeida
On Fri, Dec 11, 1998 at 04:49:57PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: > > I know Brian will be thankful for having an Imlib mailing list. > See my last mail re this issue. Erm? I must admit I don't read every message that goes thru -devel, would take up far too much time...is there an archive of -devel o

Re: gcc or cc?

1998-12-11 Thread Brederlow
Martin Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > When considering poratibility and code cleaness, the only answere one > > can give to this question is "CC=cc". > > > > No sourcecode should rely on gcc or any of its extensions. And if it > > doesn`t use a

Bug#30302: Typos in policy

1998-12-11 Thread Adam Di Carlo
"Bob" == Bob Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The following typo has been noted in policy.text.gz: > Section 2.1.1., first line: The Debian Free Software Guidelines > (DFSG) as is our definition of s/as is/is/ ^^ ^^ Note: since this is a simple typo and not a change to policy, it does not