On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 07:24:35PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > But, basically, you don't need to waste time getting permission for doing
> > this: if it's the right thing to do (and a superficial study seems to
> > indicate that it is) just go ahead and do it.
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 09:48:32AM
On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 11:43:08AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> --- debian-policy.sgml~ Mon May 21 10:45:51 2001
> +++ debian-policy.sgmlMon May 21 10:54:35 2001
> @@ -3982,8 +3982,8 @@
> Linux File system Structure
>
>
> - The location of all installed file
Hey there, I found a great retail site with all kinds of products. Home
decor, office decor, travel, outdoors, kitchen, etc... Take a look around
at http://www.merchandisewholesale.com just click on the images of the
product to enlarge it for a better view.
Sincerely,
John
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 66023 normal
Bug#66023: [AMENDMENT 06/05/2001] Treat plugins and shared libraries differently
Severity set to `normal'.
>
End of message, stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Darren Benham
(administrator, Debia
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 01:28:08AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Personally, I'd've thought policy was the exact list to discuss this
> > on and get consensus: it's implementation of a technical change that
> > effects a number of packages and has a real need to be documented (since
> > not having
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 01:28:08AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I don't think that you should ever consider policy to completely cover
> > all release issues. Use it as a checklist, certainly, but its value
> > comes from its stability -- making last minute changes to policy makes
> > about as mu
retitle 91257 [ACCEPTED 2001-05-22] changes to X font policy
forwarded 91257 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
thanks
Amendment was accepted without discussion.
--
G. Branden Robinson |I suspect Linus wrote that in a
Debian GNU/Linux|complicated way only to be able to have
[E
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 91257 [ACCEPTED 2001-05-22] changes to X font policy
Bug#91257: [AMENDMENT 2001-05-11] changes to X font policy
Changed Bug title.
> forwarded 91257 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#91257: [ACCEPTED 2001-05-22] changes to X font policy
Noted your statemen
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 09:03:57AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> How about: "must be compatible with and should comply with" the FHS.
[or]
> "should be compatible with and ideally should comply with").
Hmm, yes, my first draft actually read:
"The location of all installed files and directorie
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 09:15:10PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Am I wrong in thinking it's policy's job to document the technical
> requirements for Debian packages? Am I wrong in thinking the policy
> editors ought to be doing whatever they can to get a consensus formed
> about proposals like 51
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 10:59:11AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 09:03:57AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
>
> > How about: "must be compatible with and should comply with" the FHS.
> [or]
> > "should be compatible with and ideally should comply with").
>
> Hmm, yes, my first
11 matches
Mail list logo
