Le Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 12:18:37AM +0100, Julian Gilbey a écrit :
>
> For consistency, I guess this should be /usr/games rather than
> /usr/games/.
> The final paragraph seems a little bit vague; would "should be
> restricted to ASCII when it is possible to do so" be clearer? For if
> Unicode c
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 06:01:10PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 12:18:37AM +0100, Julian Gilbey a écrit :
> >
> > For consistency, I guess this should be /usr/games rather than
> > /usr/games/.
>
> > The final paragraph seems a little bit vague; would "should be
> > res
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 08:20:15PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 10:39:19AM -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
> > On Fri, 29 Mar 2013, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > I think we should require UTF-8 as the character encoding for file
> > > names and fix the non-UTF-8 file names in t
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 08:20:15PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 10:39:19AM -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
> > On Fri, 29 Mar 2013, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > I think we should require UTF-8 as the character encoding for file
> > > names and fix the non-UTF-8 file names in t
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 11:58:03AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> I think configuration files should also be included in the first list,
> because the
> user is supposed to be able to interact dirrectly with them.
I object to this extension of the proposal, because use of UTF-8
characters in conf
Package: debian-policy
Severity: minor
Hello everybody,
would you mind if I make the follwing replacements as non-normative changes in
the Policy ?
- "configuration files only" state -> "Config-Files" state
- not installed state -> "Not-Installed" state
- "Failed Config" stat
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 01:55:29PM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 11:58:03AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > I think configuration files should also be included in the first list,
> > because the
> > user is supposed to be able to interact dirrectly with them.
>
> I object
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 02:22:47PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Why files in ca-certificates are configuration files in the first place ?
> I doubt users are expected to edit PEM certificate.
Correction of what I said before: ca-certificates does not ship them as
conffiles, but as configuration
Charles Plessy writes:
> would you mind if I make the follwing replacements as non-normative
> changes in the Policy ?
> - "configuration files only" state -> "Config-Files" state
> - not installed state -> "Not-Installed" state
> - "Failed Config" state -> "Half
9 matches
Mail list logo
