On Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 06:10:04PM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> If you are arguing that 3.0.x policy packages should be banned from
> potato, I still think you're wrong. Instead, you should say that any
> 3.x stds compliant package much also comply with the tech ctte
> decision.
I have some 3.0.
On Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 06:10:04PM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Actually, you mean people who comply with the letter of 3.0.x,
> without complying with the tech committee decision, are breaking
> things. AFAIK, you can comply with the tech ctte w/o breaking 3.0.x
> compliance. (Note: in policy, on
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Nov 06, 1999 at 03:17:55PM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> > You guys are all acting wierd. Debian has never instituted a minimum
> > policy version for a release.
> You're completely missing the point.
Well, you've overstated the point.
> Befor
On Sat, Nov 06, 1999 at 03:17:55PM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> You guys are all acting wierd. Debian has never instituted a minimum
> policy version for a release. Try to pretend that Policy 3.x is
> required for release is only going to delay release until 2001. The
> only reasonable lower bo
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ship's Log, Lt. Yann Dirson, Stardate 011199.1654:
> > > I was under the understanding that we should use /usr/share/man and
> > > /usr/share/info at once, without symlinks, as all readers look in both
> > > places; and that we should start moving does to
Ship's Log, Lt. Yann Dirson, Stardate 011199.1654:
> > I was under the understanding that we should use /usr/share/man and
> > /usr/share/info at once, without symlinks, as all readers look in both
> > places; and that we should start moving does to /usr/share/, leaving
> > symlinks from /usr/doc t
Hello
Ship's Log, Lt. Yann Dirson, Stardate 011199.1654:
>
> I was under the understanding that we should use /usr/share/man and
> /usr/share/info at once, without symlinks, as all readers look in both
> places; and that we should start moving does to /usr/share/, leaving
> symlinks from /usr/doc
Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Hmmm...not a bad idea. Would even work after release. Bring it up on
> the debian-apt list. We don't control that in boot-floppies.
Yeah, but it makes a lot more sense after release for most users to have
"stable" in there. Tracking potato will be a dead end when woody[1]
tony mancill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I did a successful network-based new install on the 29th with the only
> real glitch being the fact that /etc/apt/sources.list points to stable,
> which is right now, not very useful. What would be the possibility of
> changing the _distribution_ field f
[Why -private ?]
Rob Browning writes:
> >There *is* confusion wether to use /usr/share/man or /usr/man,
> >/usr/share/info or /usr/info and /usr/share/doc or /usr/doc, also
> >where, if and when to add softlinks somewhere.
>
> Same here. I have no idea what's been decided.
I wa
On Sat, 30 Oct 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
> Martin Schulze wrote:
> > . Our boot-floppies are not ready yet. Freezing the distribution
> >without working boot-floppies will extend the freeze time which
> >would be a very bad idea. Adam di Carlo today told me that he
> >doesn't believe t
Massimo Dal Zotto wrote:
> > I see several problems with freezing potato in one week:
> ...
> > Therefore I propose to postpone the freeze (and the release) for at
> > least two months, hoping to get the FHS issue, Incoming and
> > boot-floppies resolved.
> >
> > Thanks for your attention,
> >
>
Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> . Our boot-floppies are not ready yet. Freezing the distribution
>without working boot-floppies will extend the freeze time which
>would be a very bad idea. Adam di Carlo today told me that he
>doesn't believe that our boot-floppies will
>Adam Di Carlo wrote:
>> Mssr Schultz misinterpreted my comments. We *do* have working
>> boot-floppies now, although they are not yet feature complete. There
>> are many critical features which aren't yet implemented (task
>> selection, automatic CD detection and apt's sources.list
>> configura
Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Mssr Schultz misinterpreted my comments. We *do* have working
> boot-floppies now, although they are not yet feature complete. There
> are many critical features which aren't yet implemented (task
> selection, automatic CD detection and apt's sources.list
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Martin Schulze wrote:
> > . Our boot-floppies are not ready yet. Freezing the distribution
> >without working boot-floppies will extend the freeze time which
> >would be a very bad idea. Adam di Carlo today told me that he
> >doesn't believe t
Martin Schulze wrote:
> . Our boot-floppies are not ready yet. Freezing the distribution
>without working boot-floppies will extend the freeze time which
>would be a very bad idea. Adam di Carlo today told me that he
>doesn't believe that our boot-floppies will be read before
>Ja
I see several problems with freezing potato in one week:
. Our Incoming directory still contains 350MB of unprocessed (NEW or
changed) packages. They ought to go into potato.
Adding them just a few days before potato is frozen would be stupid
since they can't be tested well.
Not ad
18 matches
Mail list logo
