Re: New security FAQ

On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 03:10:12PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: [...] > Err... did you notice that the current version of wml::debian::toc doesn't > seem to be able to handle multiline questions? That's the main reason it > wasn't used in the first place. Did you try the patch below? Could you t

Re: New security FAQ

Denis Barbier wrote: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 12:08:59PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > > Denis Barbier wrote: > > > There is a consensus that your version is much better (and could certainly > > > benefit to other pages as well), so please commit it, and we will try > > > later > > > to reuse ex

Re: New security FAQ

On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 12:08:59PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > Denis Barbier wrote: > > There is a consensus that your version is much better (and could certainly > > benefit to other pages as well), so please commit it, and we will try later > > to reuse existing code. > > Ok. Will do. I'll

Re: New security FAQ

Denis Barbier wrote: > There is a consensus that your version is much better (and could certainly > benefit to other pages as well), so please commit it, and we will try later > to reuse existing code. Ok. Will do. I'll rename the identifiers first so a conversion to ::toc at a later date will w

Re: New security FAQ

On Sat, Aug 24, 2002 at 11:22:01AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > Josip Rodin wrote: > > > > > 3. it doesn't work with multiline questions, which I also > > > > > find important since not all of use like 150 chars per line. > > > > > > > > This can be fixed :) > > > > > > Great. Please do.

Re: New security FAQ

Gerfried Fuchs wrote: > * Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-23 22:03]: > > Philipe: ok > > Josip: why not use wml::debian::toc > > Joey: this could be an improvement > > Alfie: ${Josip} > > It was my also my first impression why you are inventing the wheel > again. I also don't

Re: New security FAQ

* Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-23 22:03]: > Philipe: ok > Josip: why not use wml::debian::toc > Joey: this could be an improvement Alfie: ${Josip} It was my also my first impression why you are inventing the wheel again. I also don't see much sense in duplicating that code

Re: New security FAQ

On Fri, Aug 23, 2002 at 10:03:12PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > Philipe: ok > Josip: why not use wml::debian::toc > Joey: this could be an improvement > > What to do? There's no majority? However, there's also no majority > to strong objection... There is no objection at all, as long as

Re: New security FAQ

Josip Rodin wrote: > > > > 3. it doesn't work with multiline questions, which I also > > > > find important since not all of use like 150 chars per line. > > > > > > This can be fixed :) > > > > Great. Please do. > > You already have the code, why not show it, and then I'll integrate it in

Re: New security FAQ

On Fri, Aug 23, 2002 at 10:08:47PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > > > Because > > > > > > 1. it uses a different design while I preserved the existing one, > > > which I find important. > > > > Different design? > > Not using > > foo > > but instead > > foo > > is a different design. O

Re: New security FAQ

Josip Rodin wrote: > > Because > > > > 1. it uses a different design while I preserved the existing one, > > which I find important. > > Different design? Not using foo but instead foo is a different design. > > 3. it doesn't work with multiline questions, which I also > > find im

Re: New security FAQ

Philipe Gaspar wrote: > > I wonder what people think about this version of our Security FAQ > > instead of the old one from . > > The proposed new version: > > > > If I don't receive too much objections, I'd like to u

Re: New security FAQ

On Fri, Aug 23, 2002 at 09:35:23PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > > > > > If I don't receive too much objections, I'd like to upload it > > > > > to the cvs archive and let translators work on it. You don't > > > > > have to handle the index, that's done automatically. You only > > > > > have to

Re: New security FAQ

Josip Rodin wrote: > On Fri, Aug 23, 2002 at 08:58:33AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > > > > If I don't receive too much objections, I'd like to upload it > > > > to the cvs archive and let translators work on it. You don't > > > > have to handle the index, that's done automatically. You only > >

Re: New security FAQ

On Fri, Aug 23, 2002 at 08:58:33AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > > > If I don't receive too much objections, I'd like to upload it > > > to the cvs archive and let translators work on it. You don't > > > have to handle the index, that's done automatically. You only > > > have to translate the te

Re: New security FAQ

Josip Rodin wrote: > On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 11:31:57PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > > I wonder what people think about this version of our Security FAQ > > instead of the old one from . > > The proposed new version:

Re: New security FAQ

On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 11:31:57PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > I wonder what people think about this version of our Security FAQ > instead of the old one from . > The proposed new version: > > If I don't receive to

Re: New security FAQ

On Thu, 22 Aug 2002 23:31:57 +0200 Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > Hey > I wonder what people think about this version of our Security FAQ > instead of the old one from . > The proposed new version:

New security FAQ

Hi, I wonder what people think about this version of our Security FAQ instead of the old one from . The proposed new version: If I don't receive too much objections, I'd like to upload it to the cvs archive and let t