bug#36520: Error in syslog

1999-04-22 Thread Brock Rozen
Package: smtp-refuser Version: 1.0.0 Severity: normal I receive error lines, such as the follows in my syslog: Apr 22 07:45:13 rina sendmail[25272]: twist mtiwmhc04.worldnet.att.net to /usr/sbin/smtp-refuser /usr/lib/smtp-refuser/site-rejected mtiwmhc04.worldnet.att.net 204.127.

Re: RFC: Debian Quality Assurance Group

1999-04-22 Thread Josip Rodin
On Thu, Apr 22, 1999 at 01:26:57PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote: > > If it is neccessary to make all this official policy, lets go to > > debian-policy list and vote for including this text in policy. > > This does not belong in policy. Policy concerns building packages, you don't > see the constitution

Re: RFC: Debian Quality Assurance Group

1999-04-22 Thread Joey Hess
Josip Rodin wrote: > If it is neccessary to make all this official policy, lets go to > debian-policy list and vote for including this text in policy. This does not belong in policy. Policy concerns building packages, you don't see the constitution or the policy group policy or anything in there.

RFC: Debian Quality Assurance Group

1999-04-22 Thread Josip Rodin
Hi everyone, I have adjusted Vincent Renardias' proposal which Martin Schulze kindly dug out of the archives. Here it is, and I hope you all will have something to say about it, especially if there are any errors to correct. After we make a conclusion and any needed changes, we must determine wher

Re: Unconditional prompting from dotfile packages

1999-04-22 Thread Josip Rodin
On Thu, Apr 22, 1999 at 07:18:48PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: > > What do you actually mean by unconditionally prompting - the > > message for bytecompilation? What do you propose, to automatically > > bytecompile? > > is there any good reason not to do that? The only argument I see against aut

Re: Unconditional prompting from dotfile packages

1999-04-22 Thread Craig Sanders
On Thu, Apr 22, 1999 at 11:11:27AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > What do you actually mean by unconditionally prompting - the > message for bytecompilation? What do you propose, to automatically > bytecompile? is there any good reason not to do that? or at least queue the job for execution when dpk

Re: Unconditional prompting from dotfile packages

1999-04-22 Thread Josip Rodin
On Wed, Apr 21, 1999 at 07:15:28PM -0700, Ben Gertzfield wrote: > Drake>I'd like to see anything that prompts unconditionally > Drake> dropped below Standard prioirity though. dotfile* come to > Drake> mind. > > You're right, this is a complete pain in the ass. Are the dotfile > p

Unconditional prompting from dotfile packages

1999-04-22 Thread Ben Gertzfield
> "Drake" == Drake Diedrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Drake>I'd like to see anything that prompts unconditionally Drake> dropped below Standard prioirity though. dotfile* come to Drake> mind. You're right, this is a complete pain in the ass. Are the dotfile packages current