Any comments on this?
> "Kyle" == Kyle Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Kyle> Karl M. Hegbloom writes:
>> I would like if I could say `configure i386-linux', rather than
>> `configure i386-debian-linux'. Here's why (one paragraph at
>> top of page):
Kyle> This makes no sense to me. Including
I think we should begin to standardize the orginization of our
documentation heirarchy. It would be good if the same basic
organization applied to both the dhelp docs and to the info
directory...
For instance, I'd like it if, instead of a bunch of python module
documents under "Programming
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thus webmin could conceivably be judged DFSG free for
> Debian GNU/Linux and fall into non-free for all other ports.
There is no such thing as "DFSG-free on platform X". It either is
everywhere or isn't anywhere.
--
Henning Makholm
At 12:26 -0500 1999-12-19, Raul Miller wrote:
>A better question is: what's a library?
libtool's documentation describes libraries as "programs with multiple
entry points, and more formally defined interfaces."
>The simplest constraint on policy would be to label the shared library
>stuff as appl
Yann Dirson writes:
> Joey Hess writes:
> > No, there are references to base in policy.
>
> Ah yes, how did I miss it ... ? Looks like it's just defined the way
> it is not used, so throwing it out may not be a big deal :)
>
> > See my post to debian-policy.
>
> I will look for it.
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Yann Dirson wrote:
> Nice post - did you sumit the proposal ? I vote "for".
I asked what people thought and got no responses until now. But yeah, I can
make a formal proposal; please second. As it stands, policy says:
2.3.6. Base packages
--
On Mon, Dec 20, 1999 at 02:06:59PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Nice post - did you sumit the proposal ? I vote "for".
>
> I asked what people thought and got no responses until now. But yeah, I can
> make a formal proposal; please second. As it stands, policy says:
>
> 2.3.6. Base packages
> ---
8 matches
Mail list logo
