Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 1999, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
>
> > So what about simply removing the paragraph about undocumented.7 from
> > the policy and change lintian to flame if there is only this symlink?
>
> Seconded.
I'm not going to track this as a proposal in the policy summ
Chris Leishman wrote:
> What I propose is to extend the security of Debian. I do not propose an
> "ultimate security solution", but simply a method to increase the security
> debian offers to users. The proposal is as follows:
>
>
> Each package can contain a DEBIAN/md5sums file. This is nor
Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Now that Joey is posting a "weekly policy summary", *please* ensure to
> change the title before replying to the group regarding points
> raised. Otherwise, there will probably end up being multiple threads
> with the subject "Re: weekly policy summary", which is really
> un
Joey Hess wrote:
> > > So what about simply removing the paragraph about undocumented.7 from
> > > the policy and change lintian to flame if there is only this symlink?
>
> I'd second this myself, but I really want to hear from someone who was
> around when this was put in policy in the first plac
I second this proposal.
See the bug report for details. This seems to be just a clarification of
unclear wording in policy, not a true policy change. Does anyone disagree
with it?
--
see shy jo
[ Please change this message's subject to the subject of the item you are
talking about before replying to it.]
Here's what's been happening on debian-policy this week.
Despite the chaos of starting my new job, I've managed to get out this
week's policy summary. In fact, it was trivial since ther
On Fri, Jun 18, 1999 at 11:00:36PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> I second this proposal.
>
> See the bug report for details. This seems to be just a clarification of
> unclear wording in policy, not a true policy change. Does anyone disagree
> with it?
I will voice my approval here as well.
I offici
On debian-policy, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ Please change this message's subject to the subject of the item you are
> talking about before replying to it.]
Done
> Let's Debian blow... gracefully!
> * Stalled for 2 weeks.
> * Proposed by Fabien Ninoles; seconded by Sean E. Perry
> Date:18 Jun 1999 11:08:08 +0200
> To: Goswin Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc: Debian Policy List
> From:"Davide G. M. Salvetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * GB => Goswin Brederlow
>
> GB> If the suggests to non-free or contrib are depreciated by policy
> GB> or even forbi
On Jun 19, Jim Lynch wrote:
> Maybe we can do this: IF the user adds a non-free source to apt's
> sources.list, then and ONLY then should any free software installed
> or available reveal a suggestion or recommendation of non-free or
> contrib software. Should it become revealed, it would then take
Hi there,
I've just released menu-2.0. It has many new features, one of
wich is the automatic optimization of the menu tree, using
something I've called "hints". This is what I want to start
discussion about with this message.
First, why:
On my system, there are only two
Hi !
I would suggest to rename packaging-manual to debian-packaging-doc ?
This name does fit better and - the main cause - one finds it easier when
looking through the /usr/doc/ directory. (once searched half an hour for some
information because I forgot the name...)
read you,
-christian-
joost witteveen wrote:
> I've just released menu-2.0. It has many new features, one of
> wich is the automatic optimization of the menu tree, using
> something I've called "hints". This is what I want to start
> discussion about with this message.
Wow! You've utterly bypassed the whole policy is
Edward Betts wrote:
> These two are the same proposal.
It's two separate proposals, if the authors of them want to merge them they
can.
--
see shy jo
Je 1999/06/19(6)/13:06, Joey Hess montris sian geniecon skribante:
> joost witteveen wrote:
> > I've just released menu-2.0. It has many new features, one of
> > wich is the automatic optimization of the menu tree, using
> > something I've called "hints". This is what I want to start
> > discussi
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> joost witteveen wrote:
> > Although this procedure ignores the real debian tree (so much
> > discussed about), it does eventually come up that look surprisingly
> > like just that tree.
> Can you post an example? The thing I'm concerned about is consistency
joost witteveen wrote:
> > It sounds like this can generate
> > many possible trees that, while optimal, are very different depending on
> > what's installed. Which means that a user who is familiar with the menus on
> > one system might be completly lost on another.
>
> Well, the trees generated
Je 1999/06/19(6)/14:06, Chris Waters montris sian geniecon skribante:
> I'm also a little concerned about possible confusion for the
> individual users. As it is now, when I install a new package, and I
> can't find the menu entry in the first place I look, I just go check
> the /usr/lib/menu/pkg
Joey Hess wrote:
> Well the alternative that has been brought up before is to make everything
> use a deeper tree (like Apps/Editors/Big/Emacsen), and have menu
> automatically collapse the tree to Apps/Editors on your system with 2 editors
> and keep the big tree on mine (that has every editor in
Je 1999/06/19(6)/14:06, Joey Hess montris sian geniecon skribante:
[..]
> Well the alternative that has been brought up before is to make everything
> use a deeper tree (like Apps/Editors/Big/Emacsen), and have menu
> automatically collapse the tree to Apps/Editors on your system with 2 editors
20 matches
Mail list logo
