On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 03:45:01AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.5.2.0
> Severity: wishlist
>
> * Makes this policy cognizant of OpenMotif, which is now packaged for
> Debian. Since OpenMotif is non-free, there is no actual policy change if
> one treats
On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 05:36:31PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> This sounds like a good idea. Except only the source code can be
> transfered from stable to unstable (to prevent problems others are
> debating), which will mean:
>
> upload to stable == upload to stable + source only upload to unstable
On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 01:49:23AM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > Proposed changes:
> > [in section 3.1, Syntax of control fields]
>
> Please always submit proposed changes as a diff to the sgml text.
Why? It's easier for me, yes, but I wouldn't expect everyone to do
it, and it does make the
On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 12:10:56AM +0100, Cyrille Chepelov wrote:
> Requiring tools to accept multi-line values everywhere should help keeping
> them simpler (actually, a lot of them already seem to do this, anyway).
Before we make this policy, can we ensure that all significant
packages which par
On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 02:22:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.5.2.0
> Severity: wishlist
>
> I believe I attempted to accomplish too much with my last policy proposal
> on this subject.
>
> Instead of worrying about character sets, UTF-8 support, and tryi
On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 10:34:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.5.2.0
> Severity: wishlist
>
> According to bugs.debian.org:
>
> ]serious
> ] is a severe violation of Debian policy (that is, it violates a
> ] "must" or "required" direct
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 11:30:08AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > --- policy.sgml.old Sun Mar 25 22:33:31 2001
> > +++ policy.sgml Sun Mar 25 22:33:52 2001
> > @@ -181,7 +181,7 @@
> >
> >
> > These classifications are roughly equivalent to the bug
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 09:34:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 11:30:08AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > > --- policy.sgml.old Sun Mar 25 22:33:31 2001
> > > +++ policy.sgml Sun Mar 25 22:33:52 2001
> > > @@ -181,7 +181,7 @@
> > >
> > >
> > >
Hi netter,
Try this free sex web:
http://www.ChinaSexEasy.com/
This is the best Free For All sex related web site with huge database
of sex photo, audio, video, novel, joke, etc.
Absolutely FREE WITHOUT HAVING TO PAY!
Just seat back and enjoy it!
Peter O'Brien
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 11:39:03PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> *sigh* I'll leave you to getting this into policy then. (Getting seconds
> for the amended amendment and whatever else is required. I really couldn't
> be bothered)
I'm happy either way; I don't see my comments as affecting whether
t
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> close 91261
Bug#91261: [PROPOSED] modernized rewording of X/Motif policy
Bug closed, send any further explanations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Branden
Robinson)
> reopen 91261
Bug#91261: [PROPOSED] modernized rewording of X/Motif policy
Bug reopened, origin
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 09:34:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 11:30:08AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > > --- policy.sgml.old Sun Mar 25 22:33:31 2001
> > > +++ policy.sgml Sun Mar 25 22:33:52 2001
> > > @@ -181,7 +181,7 @@
> > >
> > >
> > >
On 25-Mar-01, 02:45 (CST), Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Makes this policy cognizant of OpenMotif, which is now packaged for
> Debian. Since OpenMotif is non-free, there is no actual policy change if
> one treats OpenMotif the same as OSF/Motif. This proposal makes that
>
severity 91249 normal
severity 91259 normal
severity 91260 normal
severity 91261 normal
thanks
While I'm here, I will reiterate that I have proposed a 10-day formal
discussion period for all of these amendments, per Policy Process 3.5.
--
G. Branden Robinson| I have a truly elega
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 10:52:33AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > > These classifications are roughly equivalent to the bug
> > ^^^
> > > > - severities important (for must or
> > > > + severities serious (for must or
> > >
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 91249 normal
Bug#91249: [AMENDMENT 25/03/2001] bring X support policy into line with
must/should/may usage
Severity set to `normal'.
> severity 91259 normal
Bug#91259: [AMENDMENT 25/03/2001] minor changes to app-defaults policy
Severity set t
On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 at 05:15:53 +0200, Manfred Wassmann wrote:
> 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 misf
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 03:15:17AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> But no, "It's all a plot against Branden" is a much better explanation.
> Let's go with that instead.
Oh, I don't think there's anything so calculating at the root of it.
--
G. Branden Robinson |The greatest product
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 10:56:31AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> If OpenMotif is in the distribution, why do packages need to provide
> a statically linked version? Why can't they go in contrib (DFSG) or
> non-free (otherwise) with a dependency on OpenMotif, just like other
> non-free library usi
On 27-Mar-01, 12:09 (CST), Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 10:56:31AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > If OpenMotif is in the distribution, why do packages need to provide
> > a statically linked version? Why can't they go in contrib (DFSG) or
> > non-free (o
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 02:29:55PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 27-Mar-01, 12:09 (CST), Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 10:56:31AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > > If OpenMotif is in the distribution, why do packages need to provide
> > > a statical
21 matches
Mail list logo
