On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 12:18:41AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [you continue to CC me personally; is this some sort of sport for you?]
No, it's mutt's default behaviour. The previous message wasn't cc'ed to
you, anyway.
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 02:24:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On
On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 04:49:45PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Additionally, I'd like to point out that two packages have already been
> split out of tetex packages to correct this accident, texinfo[1] and
> texi2html, and this hasn't caused any major problems (readjustment of a
> couple of depende
Branden Robinson schrieb:
> * the part of a package with X-specific components must have a priority no
> higher than the packages on which it depends (including any X packages);
> * an X-dependent alternative version of a package must have a priority no
> higher than the packages on which it de
On 25-Mar-01, 04:26 (CST), Anthony Towns wrote:
> If you create a "must" directive, then you've just created a reason to
> have a number of extra RC bugs. Indeed, that's the only point of making
> it a "must" instead of a "should".
The point of making a "must" requirement is that the consequence
On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 05:09:15PM +0200, Arthur Korn wrote:
> Branden Robinson schrieb:
> > * the part of a package with X-specific components must have a priority no
> > higher than the packages on which it depends (including any X packages);
> > * an X-dependent alternative version of a packag
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [I read the policy mailing list; while you may feel your points are so
> important that they merit my attention in my personal inbox, there is no
> need to CC me.]
The headers of this message include:
Reply-To: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTE
I just received a bug because lintian does not know about the section
'science'. Where is the canonical list of sections?
On 20010326T112130-0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> I just received a bug because lintian does not know about the section
> 'science'. Where is the canonical list of sections?
Basically, the set of valid sections is currently defined as whatever
sections exist in the master override database in
On 26-Mar-2001 Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On 20010326T112130-0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
>> I just received a bug because lintian does not know about the section
>> 'science'. Where is the canonical list of sections?
>
> Basically, the set of valid sections is currently defined as what
[CC'ing you, Bob, just to diagnose the problem]
On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 11:15:32AM -0500, Bob Hilliard wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > [I read the policy mailing list; while you may feel your points are so
> > important that they merit my attention in my personal inbox
On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 07:00:40PM +0300, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> I have two comments about the X font policy.
>
> This is an excerpt from the policy:
>
> 5. Subdirectories of /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/ other than those
>listed above should be neither created nor used. (The PEX and
>
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 07:00:40PM +0300, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
>> The packages sharefont and freefont (they contain non-free fonts)
>> place the fonts in sharefont and freefont subdirectories. I think
>> that there is good reason about this -- we don't
On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 11:31:27AM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> The documentation for someone trying to pick up debian packaging is
> woefully weak.
Patches accepted :P
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Colin Watson wrote:
> Note that we don't have architecture-specific man page hierarchies as
> mentioned in that section of the FHS. Incidentally, I think putting
> those in /usr/share/man/i386 etc. is a misfeature - why not use
> /usr/lib/man for programs only available on the
Title: å¥æ©æ°è-ä¸å¤®ç¤¾ä¼éæ°èç
§ç
dkmibjrsrkjmoqlyqpc
åéé»è©±æ¯åéåªè¦4å
!!
æ¡è¿å
費試æ¥è¦ªèº«æå!!
æ¡è¿æ 顧網å:http://vip2000.tw.to/
15 matches
Mail list logo
