Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: $ src/man wibble No manual entry for wibble See 'man 7 undocumented' for help with undocumented features. That's soo much better than having `undocumented.7' pop up. I find the current behavior very frustrating, because the output _looks_, at first glance, like a real man page, and it takes several confused moments for me to realize that it isn't. [Yeah, I know it says so explicitly about 37 times, but I think I'm fairly typical of experienced users, in that I don't actually start out _reading_ the man page from the beginning, but rather scan for various patterns etc. related to what I want to find out.] -Miles -- 97% of everything is grunge
Re: Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:14:50AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: There is a proposal under consideration for changing the undocumented(7) man page. The current proposal is included below; it is not yet the final form; and input of the general community is solicited. I have brought this modification to the notice of the full developer list since I think that this may impact a number of people, including users, whose views should be taken into account. I personally find the undocumented (7) man page frustrating, since I expected to see documentation, and was told there was none after a wait (yes, I had a slow machine). I would have much rather not had my hopes raised, and that man itself told me there was no manual page. In any case, please follow up to the address given. When declaring a comment period, it is customary to announce when it will end. How long do you propose to wait before declaring this proposal non-objectionable? So far I haven't seen any complaints that wouldn't be addressed by Colin Watson's planned update to the man-db package. -- G. Branden Robinson|The basic test of freedom is Debian GNU/Linux |perhaps less in what we are free to [EMAIL PROTECTED] |do than in what we are free not to http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |do. -- Eric Hoffer pgpLFXx1OSGK8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#167422: files in /usr/share should be world-readable
Branden == Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Branden I don't have one any more specific than somewhere under /var. Branden /var/log doesn't work if the byte-compiler isn't running as the root Branden user or the adm group. Branden *Does* the byte-compiler run as root? I dunno. I think I prefer the log file to be in the same place as the elc files; and not clutter up /var/log (which would be the logical place under var). Besides, unlike /var/log. which is not shareable between systems, these compilation logs are indeed shareable, and as such, belong in a shareable area. manoj -- Who dat who say who dat when I say who dat? Hattie McDaniel Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
Branden == Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Branden When declaring a comment period, it is customary to announce when it Branden will end. Branden How long do you propose to wait before declaring this proposal Branden non-objectionable? Well, geez. I had planned on looking at the response and addressing concerns, and waiting until a consensus was achieved, or not. It is hard to determine the amount of time a priori. I expect that we would have been able to determine a cur off point on whether the discussion was going nowhere or no by ourselves. Branden So far I haven't seen any complaints that wouldn't be Branden addressed by Colin Watson's planned update to the man-db Branden package. Me neither. So all we have lost is maybe a day or so. I expect to merge in Joeyh's debconf changes, and this mod, and anything else I feel has reached consensus sometime this weekend (unless the new editors want to try their hand at this, and let me know). manoj -- Brain fried -- Core dumped Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 12:57:25AM +, Colin Watson wrote: I have some reservations about this. Along with potential false hopes during load time, the undocumented page provides pointers to places where documentation may be found. It may be irritating to people in the know, but since man is still the most widely known unix documentation interface, new users may be helped by these pointers. I completely agree that the undocumented(7) page is useful to new users. That's why I suggest that it should remain on the system, and that man should provide a much more lightweight pointer to it when no manual page is found. My development version of man currently says: $ src/man wibble No manual entry for wibble See 'man 7 undocumented' for help with undocumented features. Perhaps undocumented features is not the best of phrases, someone might think it's for exploits and such :) -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 02:26:54PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 12:57:25AM +, Colin Watson wrote: I completely agree that the undocumented(7) page is useful to new users. That's why I suggest that it should remain on the system, and that man should provide a much more lightweight pointer to it when no manual page is found. My development version of man currently says: $ src/man wibble No manual entry for wibble See 'man 7 undocumented' for help with undocumented features. Perhaps undocumented features is not the best of phrases, someone might think it's for exploits and such :) :-) Suggestions for better wording appreciated. Maybe just for help when manual pages are not available? (I'd like to make sure that it's of the form See '%s' for ... or something similar, where man 7 undocumented gets substituted for %s. This means that I can include the message upstream in a non-Debian-specific way and have it properly translated, which is one way to get an easy win over the current arrangement.) -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 01:45:00PM +, Colin Watson wrote: I completely agree that the undocumented(7) page is useful to new users. That's why I suggest that it should remain on the system, and that man should provide a much more lightweight pointer to it when no manual page is found. My development version of man currently says: $ src/man wibble No manual entry for wibble See 'man 7 undocumented' for help with undocumented features. Perhaps undocumented features is not the best of phrases, someone might think it's for exploits and such :) :-) Suggestions for better wording appreciated. Maybe just for help when manual pages are not available? That sounds fine. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 01:45:00PM +, Colin Watson wrote: On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 02:26:54PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 12:57:25AM +, Colin Watson wrote: I completely agree that the undocumented(7) page is useful to new users. That's why I suggest that it should remain on the system, and that man should provide a much more lightweight pointer to it when no manual page is found. My development version of man currently says: $ src/man wibble No manual entry for wibble See 'man 7 undocumented' for help with undocumented features. Perhaps undocumented features is not the best of phrases, someone might think it's for exploits and such :) :-) Suggestions for better wording appreciated. Maybe just for help when manual pages are not available? [snip] How about undocumented programs? Since that *is* what Policy is trying to deal with. T -- Try to keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out. -- theboz
Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 11:13:53AM -0500, H. S. Teoh wrote: On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 01:45:00PM +, Colin Watson wrote: On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 02:26:54PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: Perhaps undocumented features is not the best of phrases, someone might think it's for exploits and such :) :-) Suggestions for better wording appreciated. Maybe just for help when manual pages are not available? [snip] How about undocumented programs? Since that *is* what Policy is trying to deal with. undocumented(7) begins with This program, utility, or function ..., so I think that's too specific. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#167422: files in /usr/share should be world-readable
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 01:57:43AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Branden == Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Branden I don't have one any more specific than somewhere under /var. Branden /var/log doesn't work if the byte-compiler isn't running as the root Branden user or the adm group. Branden *Does* the byte-compiler run as root? I dunno. I think I prefer the log file to be in the same place as the elc files; and not clutter up /var/log (which would be the logical place under var). Besides, unlike /var/log. which is not shareable between systems, these compilation logs are indeed shareable, and as such, belong in a shareable area. Well, according to the FHS, you shouldn't be putting variabel data in /usr at all: Here is a summarizing chart. This chart is only an example for a common FHS-compliant system, other chart layouts are possible within FHS- compliance. +-+-+-+ | | shareable | unshareable | +-+-+-+ |static | /usr| /etc| | | /opt| /boot | +-+-+-+ |variable | /var/mail | /var/run| | | /var/spool/news | /var/lock | +-+-+-+ Admittedly, the FHS is giving you piss-poor alternatives. But it seems that /usr-anything is wrong. -- G. Branden Robinson|Religion is regarded by the common Debian GNU/Linux |people as true, by the wise as [EMAIL PROTECTED] |false, and by the rulers as useful. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Lucius Annaeus Seneca pgpyNwifxejWD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
I don't agree at all that a half-assed man page is better than undocumented, especially if upstream has taken the trouble to provide better documentation in some other form. A minimal man page, carefully maintained, might be worthwhile. But if Colin is willing to change man to somehow figure out that a page corresponding to a binary corresponding to an installed undocumented package has been requested, and respond with appropriate pointers, I guess there is no problem. Britton On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Chris Waters wrote: On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:22:58PM -0900, Britton wrote: Along with potential false hopes during load time, the undocumented page provides pointers to places where documentation may be found. An actual man page would do a better job of that. The point of this proposal is that people should provide man pages! Lots of people seem to think that as soon as they make a link to undocumented(7), their job is done. Well it's not! If you can create a debian/control file, you can write a simple man page that (at least) explains EXACTLY where the full documentation for this program is to be found -- not just a list of possible places to start hunting. Even a half-assed man page is better than using undocumented(7), and I don't believe there's a person in this project who can't generate a half-assed man page in about 15 minutes, given some example man pages to start with. Does that answer your reservations? -- Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra-osis is too long [EMAIL PROTECTED] | microscopicsilico-to fit into a single or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | volcaniconi- standalone haiku -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#168435: debian-policy: Remove the requirement to install static libraries
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 09:05:58PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suggest the following alteration to the policy: +++ policy.sgml 2002-11-09 16:19:08.0 +0100 @@ -5592,12 +5592,12 @@ sect headingLibraries/heading p - In general, libraries must have a shared version in the - library package and a static version in the development - package. The shared version must be compiled with - tt-fPIC/tt, and the static version must not be. In - other words, each source unit ( tt*.c/tt, for example, - for C files) will need to be compiled twice. + All libraries must have a shared version in the + ttlib*/tt package and may have a static version in the + ttlib*-dev/tt package. The shared version must be compiled + with tt-fPIC/tt, and the static version must not be. If a + package has a shared and a static version, each tt*.c/tt + file will need to be compiled twice. /p p In some cases, it is acceptable for a library to be @@ -5625,13 +5625,6 @@ If a library is available only in static form, then it must follow the conventions for a development package. /p - p - All libraries must have a shared version in the - ttlib*/tt package and a static version in the - ttlib*-dev/tt package. The shared version must be - compiled with tt-fPIC/tt, and the static version must - not be. In other words, each tt*.c/tt file will need to - be compiled twice./p p You must specify the gcc option tt-D_REENTRANT/tt Rationale: The removed paragraph was redundant with the first paragraph of the section and was moved there. True. Also the first paragraph is qualified with In general, but not the second, which is confusing. The main aspect of this proposal is the removed requirement of including static versions of each library in the corresponding -dev package. Many modern libraries don't work well as a static library and Try linking your binary executable with -export-dynamic, this help a lot. usage of static libraries should be deprecated except for a few specific cases. ... when building Debian packages. But libraries are not packaged for the benefit of the autobuilders. If you work in a mixed GNU/Linux distributions environment, linking your local executables statically with some libraries is necessary. Also note that static libraries are explicitly not compiled with -fPIC, and so are a bit faster than shared one. Also currently C++ shared libraries are a pain, so static one are useful, etc... This policy change would allow maintainers to decide for themselves, whether a static version of their library is useful, thereby decreasing Your amendment must include guidelines to make such a decision. Experience has shown that a lot of Debian maintainer of library packages need clue about how to manage libraries. Letting them decide for themselves will lead to chaos. Also note that policy treat plug-in differently from libraries. the size of many -dev packages and in turn decreasing download time and archive size. In the rare cases, where a static library is needed and For this goal, you can propose to allow to split -dev packages in -static and -dev packages, -dev recommending -static. -dev containing the headers files and the .so symlink, static the static library. It was done for xlib6g in potato, IIRC. the package maintainer doesn't provide it, the user can either request the inclusion from the maintainer If they run stable, they may wait 18 months that the new release it out. or compile the library his/herself. If you want to follow this path, then your amendment must describe a standard way to rebuild the -dev package *with* the static library included, similar to apt-get source --build, else it will be a very difficult to achieve this and a major annoyance. In conclusion, I hereby object this amendement. Cheers, Bill. [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpCiWdFm7qfg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 11:51:28AM -0900, Britton wrote: I don't agree at all that a half-assed man page is better than undocumented, especially if upstream has taken the trouble to provide better documentation in some other form. Isn't that backwards? The worse the upstream documentation, the greater the need for a GOOD, detailed man page, IMO. Now, if you're talking about a lousy man page that doesn't even tell you where to find the better documentation, then I'd agree. But I wouldn't call that a half-assed man page. I'd call that full-assed. (Or do I mean no-assed?) In fact, I might go so far as to say that unless your man page is *clearly* better than undocumented(7) (at least for your specific program), then it is in no way good enough to be called half-assed. And I ought to know, as I've written several man pages for the project that I think nearly everyone will agree are half-assed. :) A minimal man page, carefully maintained, might be worthwhile. You say po-TAY-to, I say po-TAH-to cheers -- Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra-osis is too long [EMAIL PROTECTED] | microscopicsilico-to fit into a single or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | volcaniconi- standalone haiku
Re: Bug#167422: files in /usr/share should be world-readable
Branden == Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Branden Well, according to the FHS, you shouldn't be putting variabel data in Branden /usr at all: It is not variable data. It is static data; that does not change after installation. /usr/ is allowed to change when you install a new package. manoj -- Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Looking at the 3 year olds
Hi folks, Another sweep through the bugs on policy. I am not even going to address all of them, so I'll start with the bug that are 3 years old and counting. == * #32263: [PENDING AMENDMENT 20/01/2000] Splitting cgi-bin Package: debian-policy; Reported by: Brian White [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 3 years and 300 days old. There has been recent progress on this. We are now merely waiting on the basic infrastructure for this change to be implemented by the web servers (we have to wait, since if we don't, then packages complying with the new policy would suddenly have failing cgi-bin scripts) == == * #33251: document standard cross-compiler paths Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 3 years and 280 days old. There seems to have been some confusion about what the right place should be, whether to document current practice, or to standardize a logical one, and whether the FHS says something relevant. I am planning on moving this to the rejected pile, since no consensus seems to have dawned, and it is unclear to me what is the right thing to do. == == * #35762: lintian could check for hardcoded --infodir in maintaner scripts Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 3 years and 224 days old. Hmm. Apparently, we were waiting for an transition to the FHS, and /usr/share/info/. On may machines, I see that /usr/info is a symbolic link to share/info; so this transition is now complete. However, I did not see any reference to the evils of the --infodir option; and I have forgotten what the discussion on debian-policy may have been. Can anyone step up and say what the upside of accepting this proposal is supposed to be? == == * #39125: lintian: should maybe recognize /etc/init.d/*.sh ? Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: Yann Dirson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 3 years and 164 days old. No discussion on this at all. There is no rationale for _why_ something has to be done here, just a bald statement to the effect. Since nothing is broken, I think it is upto the proponents to make a case here. == == * #39830: [AMENDMENT 30/10/2002] get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 3 years and 151 days old. Heh. Have people tested the new mandb? This is going to get included into policy on next upload; the new and improved mandb ought to be in unstable before then. == == * #47438: [PROPOSAL] update policy copyright Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 3 years and 35 days old. Well, since the list of contributors to this document is long, and undocumented, whose names _do_ go on the copyright list? == == * #48045: debian-policy: non-US is a misnomer Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 3 years and 27 days old. This is not a policy issue. Policy calls that archive whatever name the project has assigned to it; and if the project channges that name, the policy document shall be amended. Personally, I think this is silly. == manoj -- Of course the US Constitution isn't perfect; but it's a lot better than what we have now. Eric Sheppard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Looking at the 3 year olds
retitle 48045 non-US is a misnomer reassign 48045 project thanks On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 06:47:35PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: * #48045: debian-policy: non-US is a misnomer Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 3 years and 27 days old. This is not a policy issue. Policy calls that archive whatever name the project has assigned to it; and if the project channges that name, the policy document shall be amended. Personally, I think this is silly. I don't see why it was at debian-policy in the first place... reassigning to the proper bit bucket^W^W pseudo-package in case Cesar or anyone else decides to reopen it. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Processed: Re: Looking at the 3 year olds
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: retitle 48045 non-US is a misnomer Bug#48045: debian-policy: non-US is a misnomer Changed Bug title. (By the way, that Bug is currently marked as done.) reassign 48045 project Bug#48045: non-US is a misnomer Bug reassigned from package `debian-policy' to `project'. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database)
Bug#48045: marked as done (debian-policy: non-US is a misnomer)
Your message dated Thu, 14 Nov 2002 18:47:35 -0600
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Looking at the 3 year olds
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 22 Oct 1999 18:39:53 +
Received: (qmail 28021 invoked from network); 22 Oct 1999 18:39:50 -
Received: from gama.web4u.com.br (200.244.50.4)
by master.debian.org with SMTP; 22 Oct 1999 18:39:50 -
Received: from cesarb2.cesarb.personal.intranet ([EMAIL PROTECTED]
[200.244.50.203])
by gama.web4u.com.br (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA01472;
Fri, 22 Oct 1999 16:40:26 -0200
Received: from cesarb by cesarb2.cesarb.personal.intranet with local (Exim 2.05
#1 (Debian))
id 11ejaE-gr-00; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 16:38:34 -0200
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: debian-policy: non-US is a misnomer
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailer: bug 3.1.7
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 16:38:34 -0200
Package: debian-policy
Version: 2.5.0.0
non-US is not a good name for the non-US (ahem) part of the archive. It's not
only non-US, it's also (for example) non-France. And when/if the US stops with
the silly crypto export laws, the name will be even more obviously fake.
I thought about naming it 'crypto', but it would also not describe it correctly
(since we also have packages encumbered by other silly laws there, like
software patents). Any ideas?
-- System Information
Debian Release: 2.1
Kernel Version: Linux cesarb2 2.2.12 #1 Fri Aug 27 13:56:08 EST 1999 i586
unknown
---
Received: (at 48045-done) by bugs.debian.org; 15 Nov 2002 00:51:23 +
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Nov 14 18:51:22 2002
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from pcp559992pcs.rthfrd01.tn.comcast.net
(glaurung.green-gryphon.com) [68.52.105.148]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18CUhd-0003M9-00; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 18:51:22 -0600
Received: from glaurung.green-gryphon.com ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [127.0.0.1])
by glaurung.green-gryphon.com (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) with ESMTP id
gAF0lZ4J006910;
Thu, 14 Nov 2002 18:47:35 -0600
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by glaurung.green-gryphon.com (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id
gAF0lZuI006906;
Thu, 14 Nov 2002 18:47:35 -0600
X-Mailer: emacs 21.2.2 (via feedmail 9-beta-7 I)
To: debian-policy@lists.debian.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Looking at the 3 year olds
From: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: The Debian Project
X-URL: http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/
User-Agent: Gnus/5.090008 (Oort Gnus v0.08) Emacs/21.2 (i386-pc-linux-gnu)
(i386-pc-linux-gnu)
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
X-Time: Thu Nov 14 18:47:34 2002
X-Face: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/;Y^gTjR\T^B'fbeuVGiyKrvbfKJl!^e|e:iu(kJ6c|QYB57LP*|t
YlP~HF/=h:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:6Cj0kd#4]*D,|0djf'CVlXkI,aV4\}?d_KEqsN{Nnt7
78OsbQ[56/!nisvyB/uA5Q.{)gm6?q.j71ww.b9b]-sG8zNt%KkIaxWg1VcjZk[hBQ]j~`Wq
Xl,y1a!(6`UM{~'X[Y_,Bv+}=L\SS*mA8=s;!=O`ja|@PEzbi0}Qp,`Z\:6:OmRi*
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 18:47:35 -0600
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.0 required=5.0
tests=DOMAIN_4U2,NOSPAM_INC,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT
version=2.41
X-Spam-Level:
Hi folks,
Another sweep through the bugs on policy. I am not even
going to address all of them, so I'll start with the bug that are 3
years old and counting.
==
* #32263: [PENDING AMENDMENT 20/01/2000] Splitting cgi-bin
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: Brian White [EMAIL PROTECTED];
3 years and 300 days old.
There has been recent progress on this. We are now merely waiting on
the basic infrastructure for this change to be implemented by the web
servers (we have to wait, since if we don't, then packages complying
with the new policy would suddenly have failing cgi-bin scripts)
==
==
* #33251: document standard cross-compiler paths
Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: Santiago Vila
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; 3 years and 280 days old.
There seems to have been some confusion about what the right place
should be, whether to document current practice, or to
CVS srivasta: * Add the modifications about base system, as opposed to the soon to be
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy Module name:debian-policy Changes by: srivastaThu Nov 14 18:45:32 MST 2002 Modified files: . : policy.sgml virtual-package-names-list.txt Log message: * Add the modifications about base system, as opposed to the soon to be obsolete base section (I assume it is) closes: Bug#53582 * Rearranged the virtual packages list.closes: bug#72980
CVS srivasta: * Add the modifications about base system, as opposed to the soon to be
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy Module name:debian-policy Changes by: srivastaThu Nov 14 18:45:35 MST 2002 Modified files: debian : changelog control Log message: * Add the modifications about base system, as opposed to the soon to be obsolete base section (I assume it is) closes: Bug#53582 * Rearranged the virtual packages list.closes: bug#72980
And now for the 2 years and older (bugs closed as well)
Hi, == * #51702: [PROPOSED] Change package relations policy to remove references to non-free from main Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk; 2 years and 351 days old. patents are, unfortunately, no longer a US only thing. There was no discussion. Crypto issues have changed since then, and we have a non-free GR approaching. I do not think this is an active, and actionable item for the policy group; I am thus closing this bug. == == * #53582: [PROPOSAL] Obsolete base section Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 2 years and 324 days old. Sounds reasonable. There were no objections, and this is quite obviously true currently; and then the Debian installer shall shake things up again). This is going in. == == * #54002: [PROPOSAL] permit use of bzip2 for source packages Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: Chris Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 2 years and 317 days old. This proposal is premature; we need to see the tools updated, and then, if needed, formalize it into policy. I suspect that since policy is not dpkg documentation, this shall never need be in policy; but I need to go over the document ands double check that. == == * #54524: http_proxy and web clients. Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Nicol=E1s_Lichtmaier?= [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 2 years and 312 days old. This seems like something being designed, and, thus, not yet a policy issue. There has been no action for 2 years, and I am closing this bug. If indeed we have current practice with /et/proxies or something, a new bug/proposal can be created. == == * #54985: debian-policy: handling of shared libraries Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: Matthew Vernon [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 2 years and 308 days old. There does not seem to have been a consensus on this issue, or a technically superior position (in my eyes). == == * #60979: What /etc/init.d/xxx restart does? Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: Radim Kolar [EMAIL PROTECTED]; merged with #87994; 2 years and 238 days old. Isn't this now being standardized by LSB? == == * #62768: policy on kernel module sources needed (unpacked or not) Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: Alan W. Irwin [EMAIL PROTECTED]; merged with #63598, #71805; 2 years and 210 days old. * #63598: policy on kernel module sources needed (unpacked or not) Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: Ulf Jaenicke-Roessler [EMAIL PROTECTED]; merged with #62768, #71805; 2 years and 195 days old. Why is this a policy issue? Do we really need to mandate absolute conformity in modules packages? Whether you do a tar zvvfx in MODULES_LOC or you di lndir there, you do get the same results. == == * #62996: no way to detect webservers without CGI support Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: Rev Simon Rumble [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 2 years and 205 days old. This is not a policy issue yet, this is a design and implementation issue. Please try to get the httpd package maintainers together and work out a solution; and then we can put the working solution into policy. == == * #65577: [Amended] copyright should include notice if a package is not a part of Debian distribution Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: Taketoshi Sano [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 2 years and 156 days old. Hmm. I don't know. Does it seem like we have consensus? ==
Bug#73620: marked as done ([PROPOSED] Policy example about INSTALL is wrong)
Your message dated Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:41:50 -0600
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line And now for the 2 years and older (bugs closed as well)
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 3 Oct 2000 23:30:53 +
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Oct 03 18:30:53 2000
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from friendly.realnames.com [:::216.86.230.76]
by master.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 13gbWP-0002Js-00; Tue, 03 Oct 2000 18:30:53 -0500
Received: (qmail 5811 invoked from network); 4 Oct 2000 06:38:27 -
Received: from rincon.centraal.com (HELO rincon.internal.realnames.com)
(10.1.5.99)
by friendly.realnames.com with SMTP; 4 Oct 2000 06:38:27 -
Received: by rincon.centraal.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
id TX6B3CTR; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 16:31:21 -0700
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Yves Arrouye [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Policy example about INSTALL is wrong
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 16:30:47 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=iso-8859-1
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.2.1.0
Section 4.1 of the policy manual says to build after setting
INSTALL = install
In addition to the fact that the example should use INSTALL_PROGRAM because
of the strip example later in this section, the value of the variable should
be /usr/bin/install. If it is set to a non-absolute path, configure will add
dots in subdirectories to refer to the top-level command, and then calls to
$(INSTALL) or $(INSTALL_PROGRAM) will fail, as in:
../install: No such file or directory
YA
--
My opinions do not necessarily reflect my company's.
The opposite is also true.
---
Received: (at 73620-done) by bugs.debian.org; 15 Nov 2002 01:51:25 +
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Nov 14 19:51:24 2002
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from pcp559992pcs.rthfrd01.tn.comcast.net
(glaurung.green-gryphon.com) [68.52.105.148]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18CVdh-00076k-00; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:51:21 -0600
Received: from glaurung.green-gryphon.com ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [127.0.0.1])
by glaurung.green-gryphon.com (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) with ESMTP id
gAF1fp4J008258;
Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:41:52 -0600
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by glaurung.green-gryphon.com (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id
gAF1fpAi008254;
Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:41:51 -0600
X-Mailer: emacs 21.2.2 (via feedmail 9-beta-7 I)
To: debian-policy@lists.debian.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: And now for the 2 years and older (bugs closed as well)
From: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: The Debian Project
X-URL: http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/
User-Agent: Gnus/5.090008 (Oort Gnus v0.08) Emacs/21.2 (i386-pc-linux-gnu)
(i386-pc-linux-gnu)
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
X-Time: Thu Nov 14 19:41:50 2002
X-Face: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/;Y^gTjR\T^B'fbeuVGiyKrvbfKJl!^e|e:iu(kJ6c|QYB57LP*|t
YlP~HF/=h:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:6Cj0kd#4]*D,|0djf'CVlXkI,aV4\}?d_KEqsN{Nnt7
78OsbQ[56/!nisvyB/uA5Q.{)gm6?q.j71ww.b9b]-sG8zNt%KkIaxWg1VcjZk[hBQ]j~`Wq
Xl,y1a!(6`UM{~'X[Y_,Bv+}=L\SS*mA8=s;!=O`ja|@PEzbi0}Qp,`Z\:6:OmRi*
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:41:50 -0600
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.3 required=5.0
tests=NOSPAM_INC,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT
version=2.41
X-Spam-Level:
Hi,
==
* #51702: [PROPOSED] Change package relations policy to remove
references to non-free from main
Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: Oliver
Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk; 2 years and 351 days old.
patents are, unfortunately, no longer a US only thing. There was no
discussion. Crypto issues have changed since then, and we have a
non-free GR approaching. I do not think this is an active, and
actionable item for the policy group; I am thus closing this bug.
==
==
* #53582: [PROPOSAL] Obsolete base section
CVS joy: a bit more sane handling of odd cases
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy Module name:debian-policy Changes by: joy Thu Nov 14 19:13:41 MST 2002 Modified files: debian : rules Log message: a bit more sane handling of odd cases
Bug#62996: marked as done (no way to detect webservers without CGI support)
Your message dated Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:41:50 -0600
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line And now for the 2 years and older (bugs closed as well)
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 25 Apr 2000 07:23:39 +
Received: (qmail 6718 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2000 07:23:37 -
Received: from taz.net.au ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
by master.debian.org with SMTP; 25 Apr 2000 07:23:37 -
Received: by taz.net.au (Postfix, from userid 1017)
id AFEE53050; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 17:23:01 +1000 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by taz.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F1C63046
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 17:23:01 +1000 (EST)
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 17:23:00 +1000 (EST)
From: Rev Simon Rumble [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: dhttpd doesn't support CGI
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-url: http://www.rumble.net/
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Package: doc-central
Version: 1.1
I have dhttpd installed as my web server on my workstation as I don't need
anything more heavyweight. However, doc-central requires a web server
with CGI support.
Not sure how this can easily be resolved. The quick and dirty way would
be to create a conflict between doc-central and any non-CGI web servers.
The nice way to do it, would require some additional semantics to the web
server class of packages to include whether the web server supports CGI.
---
Rev Simon Rumble The Roman Rule:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] The one who says it cannot be done should never
http://www.rumble.net interrupt the one who is doing it.
---
Received: (at 62996-done) by bugs.debian.org; 15 Nov 2002 01:51:24 +
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Nov 14 19:51:23 2002
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from pcp559992pcs.rthfrd01.tn.comcast.net
(glaurung.green-gryphon.com) [68.52.105.148]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18CVdh-00076k-00; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:51:21 -0600
Received: from glaurung.green-gryphon.com ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [127.0.0.1])
by glaurung.green-gryphon.com (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) with ESMTP id
gAF1fp4J008258;
Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:41:52 -0600
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by glaurung.green-gryphon.com (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id
gAF1fpAi008254;
Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:41:51 -0600
X-Mailer: emacs 21.2.2 (via feedmail 9-beta-7 I)
To: debian-policy@lists.debian.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: And now for the 2 years and older (bugs closed as well)
From: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: The Debian Project
X-URL: http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/
User-Agent: Gnus/5.090008 (Oort Gnus v0.08) Emacs/21.2 (i386-pc-linux-gnu)
(i386-pc-linux-gnu)
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
X-Time: Thu Nov 14 19:41:50 2002
X-Face: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/;Y^gTjR\T^B'fbeuVGiyKrvbfKJl!^e|e:iu(kJ6c|QYB57LP*|t
YlP~HF/=h:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:6Cj0kd#4]*D,|0djf'CVlXkI,aV4\}?d_KEqsN{Nnt7
78OsbQ[56/!nisvyB/uA5Q.{)gm6?q.j71ww.b9b]-sG8zNt%KkIaxWg1VcjZk[hBQ]j~`Wq
Xl,y1a!(6`UM{~'X[Y_,Bv+}=L\SS*mA8=s;!=O`ja|@PEzbi0}Qp,`Z\:6:OmRi*
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:41:50 -0600
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.3 required=5.0
tests=NOSPAM_INC,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT
version=2.41
X-Spam-Level:
Hi,
==
* #51702: [PROPOSED] Change package relations policy to remove
references to non-free from main
Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: Oliver
Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk; 2 years and 351 days old.
patents are, unfortunately, no longer a US only thing. There was no
discussion. Crypto issues have changed since then, and we have a
non-free GR approaching. I do not think this is an active, and
actionable item for the policy group; I am thus closing this bug.
==
==
* #53582: [PROPOSAL] Obsolete base section
Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: Joey Hess
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; 2 years and 324 days old.
Sounds
Bug#54002: marked as done ([PROPOSAL] permit use of bzip2 for source packages)
Your message dated Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:41:50 -0600
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line And now for the 2 years and older (bugs closed as well)
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 4 Jan 2000 05:10:06 +
Received: (qmail 2979 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2000 05:10:01 -
Received: from dialup119.d.watervalley.net (HELO quantex) (216.220.142.119)
by master.debian.org with SMTP; 4 Jan 2000 05:10:01 -
Received: from quango by quantex with local (Exim 3.11 #1 (Debian))
id 125ME8-0001Mz-00; Mon, 03 Jan 2000 23:09:48 -0600
From: Chris Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Debian Bug Tracking System [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PROPOSAL] permit use of bzip2 for source packages
X-Reportbug-Version: 0.46
X-Mailer: reportbug 0.46
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 23:09:48 -0600
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: Chris Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.1.1.1
Severity: wishlist
I propose that woody and subsequent releases permit the use of bzip2
format for source packages. Code to handle bzip2-compressed source
packages has been integrated into an experimental release of dpkg, and
could easily be ported to the current mainline dpkg. The patches
allow automatic detection of the format on extraction
(dpkg-source -x); building of source packages requires an additional
argument to dpkg-source, dpkg-buildpackage or debuild, as appropriate.
As a technical matter, bzip2-compressed source packages have extension
tar.bz2 and are, when uncompressed, should have an identical file
structure to a gzip-compressed package.
(This proposal replaces #39299 and is an amended version thereof.)
I can't find any section of the policy document that deals with the
specifics of the soruce package format. It may be sufficient to add a
section stating:
Source packages may be compressed either using gzip or bzip2. For
more information, refer to the documentation for the dpkg-dev package;
in particular, the manual page for the dpkg-source command.
-- System Information
Debian Release: potato
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux quango4 2.3.33 #1 Sun Dec 19 13:52:36 CST 1999 i686
---
Received: (at 54002-done) by bugs.debian.org; 15 Nov 2002 01:51:23 +
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Nov 14 19:51:22 2002
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from pcp559992pcs.rthfrd01.tn.comcast.net
(glaurung.green-gryphon.com) [68.52.105.148]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18CVdh-00076k-00; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:51:21 -0600
Received: from glaurung.green-gryphon.com ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [127.0.0.1])
by glaurung.green-gryphon.com (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) with ESMTP id
gAF1fp4J008258;
Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:41:52 -0600
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by glaurung.green-gryphon.com (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id
gAF1fpAi008254;
Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:41:51 -0600
X-Mailer: emacs 21.2.2 (via feedmail 9-beta-7 I)
To: debian-policy@lists.debian.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: And now for the 2 years and older (bugs closed as well)
From: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: The Debian Project
X-URL: http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/
User-Agent: Gnus/5.090008 (Oort Gnus v0.08) Emacs/21.2 (i386-pc-linux-gnu)
(i386-pc-linux-gnu)
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
X-Time: Thu Nov 14 19:41:50 2002
X-Face: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/;Y^gTjR\T^B'fbeuVGiyKrvbfKJl!^e|e:iu(kJ6c|QYB57LP*|t
YlP~HF/=h:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:6Cj0kd#4]*D,|0djf'CVlXkI,aV4\}?d_KEqsN{Nnt7
78OsbQ[56/!nisvyB/uA5Q.{)gm6?q.j71ww.b9b]-sG8zNt%KkIaxWg1VcjZk[hBQ]j~`Wq
Xl,y1a!(6`UM{~'X[Y_,Bv+}=L\SS*mA8=s;!=O`ja|@PEzbi0}Qp,`Z\:6:OmRi*
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:41:50 -0600
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.3 required=5.0
tests=NOSPAM_INC,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT
version=2.41
X-Spam-Level:
Hi,
==
* #51702: [PROPOSED] Change package relations policy to remove
references to non-free from main
Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: Oliver
Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk; 2 years and 351 days old.
patents are, unfortunately, no longer a US only thing. There was no
discussion. Crypto issues have changed since
Bug#54524: marked as done (http_proxy and web clients.)
Your message dated Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:41:50 -0600
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line And now for the 2 years and older (bugs closed as well)
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 9 Jan 2000 03:45:18 +
Received: (qmail 14247 invoked from network); 9 Jan 2000 03:45:16 -
Received: from postino4.prima.com.ar (200.42.0.162)
by master.debian.org with SMTP; 9 Jan 2000 03:45:16 -
Received: from newton (host026222.ciudad.com.ar [200.42.26.222])
by postino4.prima.com.ar (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA87648
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 00:44:58 -0300 (ART)
Received: from nick by newton with local (Exim 3.11 #1 (Debian GNU/Linux))
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]
id 1279N7-0003v4-00; Sun, 09 Jan 2000 00:50:29 -0300
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 00:50:29 -0300
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Nicol=E1s_Lichtmaier?= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: http_proxy and web clients.
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i
Package: debian-policy
This is already standard, but I think it should be into policy because I
already saw some programs deviating from this expected behaviour.
Web clients should default to try to fetch URLs by a direct connection to
the target host. If the `http_proxy' variable is defined, it should specify
an URL that would be used as a proxy. Programs should not try to access an
URL directly if this variable is defined. Programs that have the ability to
do it should also respect the ftp_proxy variable, but not all ftp clients
are forced to fo that, since it needs handling of the HTTP protocol.
---
Received: (at 54524-done) by bugs.debian.org; 15 Nov 2002 01:51:23 +
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Nov 14 19:51:23 2002
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from pcp559992pcs.rthfrd01.tn.comcast.net
(glaurung.green-gryphon.com) [68.52.105.148]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18CVdh-00076k-00; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:51:21 -0600
Received: from glaurung.green-gryphon.com ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [127.0.0.1])
by glaurung.green-gryphon.com (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) with ESMTP id
gAF1fp4J008258;
Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:41:52 -0600
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by glaurung.green-gryphon.com (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id
gAF1fpAi008254;
Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:41:51 -0600
X-Mailer: emacs 21.2.2 (via feedmail 9-beta-7 I)
To: debian-policy@lists.debian.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: And now for the 2 years and older (bugs closed as well)
From: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: The Debian Project
X-URL: http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/
User-Agent: Gnus/5.090008 (Oort Gnus v0.08) Emacs/21.2 (i386-pc-linux-gnu)
(i386-pc-linux-gnu)
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
X-Time: Thu Nov 14 19:41:50 2002
X-Face: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/;Y^gTjR\T^B'fbeuVGiyKrvbfKJl!^e|e:iu(kJ6c|QYB57LP*|t
YlP~HF/=h:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:6Cj0kd#4]*D,|0djf'CVlXkI,aV4\}?d_KEqsN{Nnt7
78OsbQ[56/!nisvyB/uA5Q.{)gm6?q.j71ww.b9b]-sG8zNt%KkIaxWg1VcjZk[hBQ]j~`Wq
Xl,y1a!(6`UM{~'X[Y_,Bv+}=L\SS*mA8=s;!=O`ja|@PEzbi0}Qp,`Z\:6:OmRi*
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:41:50 -0600
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.3 required=5.0
tests=NOSPAM_INC,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT
version=2.41
X-Spam-Level:
Hi,
==
* #51702: [PROPOSED] Change package relations policy to remove
references to non-free from main
Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: Oliver
Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk; 2 years and 351 days old.
patents are, unfortunately, no longer a US only thing. There was no
discussion. Crypto issues have changed since then, and we have a
non-free GR approaching. I do not think this is an active, and
actionable item for the policy group; I am thus closing this bug.
==
==
* #53582: [PROPOSAL] Obsolete base section
Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: Joey Hess
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; 2 years and 324 days old.
Bug#51702: marked as done ([PROPOSED] Change package relations policy to remove references to non-free from main)
Your message dated Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:41:50 -0600 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line And now for the 2 years and older (bugs closed as well) has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 1 Dec 1999 10:28:30 + Received: (qmail 1937 invoked from network); 1 Dec 1999 10:28:29 - Received: from mail.enterprise.net (194.72.192.18) by master.debian.org with SMTP; 1 Dec 1999 10:28:29 - Received: from linda.lfix.co.uk ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [194.72.195.121]) by mail.enterprise.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA06326; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:28:24 GMT Received: from lfix.co.uk ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [127.0.0.1]) by linda.lfix.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-6) with ESMTP id KAA28098; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:28:23 GMT Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Authentication-Warning: linda.lfix.co.uk: Host [EMAIL PROTECTED] [127.0.0.1] claimed to be lfix.co.uk X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 (debian) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: debian-policy@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: [PROPOSED] Change package relations policy to remove references to non-free from main In-Reply-To: Message from Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] of Tue, 30 Nov 1999 22:44:49 PST. [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 10:28:23 + From: Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk Package: debian-policy Version: 3.1.1.0 Severity: normal Joseph Carter wrote: I think the keyring belongs in non-US/main, but it can't get there until 20 September 2000 unless we change our policy to not consider US patents as making something automatically non-free. I did not realise that was the policy, but I see this in 2.1.4: `Non-free' contains packages which are not compliant with the DFSG or which are encumbered by patents or other legal issues that make their distribution problematic. Patents are almost entirely a US problem; `other legal issues' is very vague, but if it makes distribution a problem, the package should probably not be in the archive at all. All packages in `non-free' must be electronically distributable across international borders. Would a patent lawyer agree that software that violated US patents is freely transferable into USA? Has anyone taken any advice on this? In any case, I think it is wrong for US problems to dictate what is free or not. PROPOSAL This is a formal proposal to change policy to read thus: 2.1.4. The non-free section --- `Non-free' contains packages which are not compliant with the DFSG. There must be no legal issues that hinder the packages' being freely distributable from the archive. Non-free packages may have restrictions on their being included in a distribution for sale; checking such restrictions is the responsibility of the person making the distribution. All packages in `non-free' must be electronically distributable across international borders. 2.1.5. The non-us server Some programs with cryptographic program code must be stored on the non-us server because of export restrictions of the U.S. This applies only to packages which contain cryptographic code. A package containing a program with an interface to a cryptographic program or a program that's dynamically linked against a cryptographic library can be distributed if it is capable of running without the cryptography library or program. Packages that violate US patents must also be placed on the non-us server. /PROPOSAL This leaves open the problem of what to do about packages that violate patents of other countries; since they are currently in non-free, our mirrors host them anyway. We should probably maintain a database of legal issues against packages, to make it easy for people to see if there is anything they should exclude from mirrors. -- Vote against SPAM: http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/ Oliver Elphick[EMAIL PROTECTED] Isle of Wight
CVS joy: * removed the obsolete notion of documenting changes within the copyright
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy Module name:debian-policy Changes by: joy Thu Nov 14 19:49:48 MST 2002 Modified files: . : policy.sgml Log message: * removed the obsolete notion of documenting changes within the copyright file, which closes: #65764, and cleared up the overall mess regarding changelogs with a nicer new introductory stuff in the changelogs section and more cross-references * merged the section on accessing the additional documentation within the generic section since it's just one paragraph now, and fits in nicely; also made it say has been instead of has now in order to make the Policy independent of a specific point in time * moved the note about /usr/share/doc/foo being a symlink to the generic section about the additional documentation, it didn't belong only to the section about changelogs
CVS joy: condensed the information about authors into a nice little section of its own and link to that from the footer, removed pointless personal email addresses, added Overfiend and myself to the list of current maintainers which appears to be in alphabetical order
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy Module name:debian-policy Changes by: joy Thu Nov 14 20:20:34 MST 2002 Modified files: . : policy.sgml Log message: condensed the information about authors into a nice little section of its own and link to that from the footer, removed pointless personal email addresses, added Overfiend and myself to the list of current maintainers which appears to be in alphabetical order
CVS joy: #65764
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy Module name:debian-policy Changes by: joy Thu Nov 14 20:30:41 MST 2002 Modified files: . : upgrading-checklist.html debian : changelog Log message: #65764
CVS joy: the section levels aren't normalized so in some chapters most of the stuff is in sect1s. let's see how people like displaying those in the TOC.
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy Module name:debian-policy Changes by: joy Thu Nov 14 20:34:27 MST 2002 Modified files: . : policy.sgml Log message: the section levels aren't normalized so in some chapters most of the stuff is in sect1s. let's see how people like displaying those in the TOC.
Processed: Closing out old packaging manual bugs
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: severity 50565 fixed Bug#50565: packaging-manual: update dpkg-shlibdeps example in 3.1.4 Severity set to `fixed'. severity 51832 fixed Bug#51832: packaging-manual: Architecture setting: more information. Bug#55356: packaging-manual: Please clarify multiple architectures WRT control file Severity set to `fixed'. severity 55356 fixed Bug#55356: packaging-manual: Please clarify multiple architectures WRT control file Bug#51832: packaging-manual: Architecture setting: more information. Severity set to `fixed'. severity 62505 fixed Bug#62505: Section 7.3 gives wrong example of Description field Severity set to `fixed'. severity 68827 fixed Bug#68827: packaging-manual: packaging manual should refer to gpg instead of pgp Severity set to `fixed'. severity 70742 fixed Bug#70742: packaging-manual: doesn't list Format: field Severity set to `fixed'. severity 71323 fixed Bug#71323: packaging-manual: old-style source error Severity set to `fixed'. severity 75508 fixed Bug#75508: packaging-manual: a wrong example Severity set to `fixed'. severity 77960 fixed Bug#77960: packaging-manual: Origin and Bugs are undocumented Severity set to `fixed'. severity 79210 fixed Bug#79210: .orig.tar.gz definition and reality are out of sync Severity set to `fixed'. severity 85815 fixed Bug#85815: packaging-manual: about dpkg:UpstreamVersion and dpkg:Version substvars Bug#85818: packaging-manual: about dpkg:UpstreamVersion and dpkg:Version substvars Severity set to `fixed'. severity 85818 fixed Bug#85818: packaging-manual: about dpkg:UpstreamVersion and dpkg:Version substvars Bug#85815: packaging-manual: about dpkg:UpstreamVersion and dpkg:Version substvars Severity set to `fixed'. severity 92071 fixed Bug#92071: packaging manual need documentation about multi-binary packages. Severity set to `fixed'. severity 93295 fixed Bug#93295: example contradicting rationale in chapter 11 (Diversions) Severity set to `fixed'. severity 48050 fixed Bug#48050: skeleton maintainer scripts Severity set to `fixed'. severity 75988 fixed Bug#75988: Chapter 7 should suggest to use URLs Severity set to `fixed'. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database)
Bug#93295: Closing out old packaging manual bugs
severity 50565 fixed severity 51832 fixed severity 55356 fixed severity 62505 fixed severity 68827 fixed severity 70742 fixed severity 71323 fixed severity 75508 fixed severity 77960 fixed severity 79210 fixed severity 85815 fixed severity 85818 fixed severity 92071 fixed severity 93295 fixed severity 48050 fixed severity 75988 fixed thanks These bugs belong to a defunct package, and most of them do not apply any more. I am not closing these bug, but just marking them fixed, so that they are not closed out; this way, if I am mistaken, they can be reopened and redirected. manoj -- Lonesome? Like a change? Like a new job? Like excitement? Like to meet new and interesting people? JUST SCREW-UP ONE MORE TIME!!! Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.golden-gryphon.com/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Bug#152632: marked as done (please include GFDL)
Your message dated Thu, 14 Nov 2002 23:21:39 -0600
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line The GFDL is not yet a common license
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 11 Jul 2002 16:34:54 +
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jul 11 11:34:54 2002
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from 80-24-13-86.uc.nombres.ttd.es (getyouriso.dyndns.org)
[80.24.13.86]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 17Sgu6-0006LM-00; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 11:34:54 -0500
Received: from aragorn ([192.168.0.3])
by getyouriso.dyndns.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 17ScDE-0006xe-00; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 13:34:20 +0200
Received: from rmh by aragorn with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 17SVma-xW-00; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 06:42:24 +0200
Subject: please include GFDL
From: Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Debian Bug Tracking System [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailer: reportbug 1.99.47
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 06:42:23 +0200
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-BadReturnPath: [EMAIL PROTECTED] rewritten as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
using From header
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: base-files
Version: 3.0.3
Severity: wishlist
Hello!
Please could you include the GFDL license in /usr/share/common-licenses ?
thanks
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.0
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux aragorn 2.4.18 #1 Sat Apr 13 21:19:47 CEST 2002 i586
Locale: LANG=ca_ES.ISO-8859-1, LC_CTYPE=ca_ES.ISO-8859-1
Versions of packages base-files depends on:
ii base-passwd 3.4.1 Debian Base System Password/Group
ii gawk [awk]1:3.1.1-1 GNU awk, a pattern scanning and pr
ii mawk [awk]1.3.3-8a pattern scanning and text proces
-- no debconf information
---
Received: (at 152632-done) by bugs.debian.org; 15 Nov 2002 05:31:24 +
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Nov 14 23:31:22 2002
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from pcp559992pcs.rthfrd01.tn.comcast.net
(glaurung.green-gryphon.com) [68.52.105.148]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18CZ4b-00020t-00; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 23:31:21 -0600
Received: from glaurung.green-gryphon.com ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [127.0.0.1])
by glaurung.green-gryphon.com (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) with ESMTP id
gAF5Lf4J015062;
Thu, 14 Nov 2002 23:21:41 -0600
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by glaurung.green-gryphon.com (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id
gAF5LdFp015058;
Thu, 14 Nov 2002 23:21:39 -0600
X-Mailer: emacs 21.2.2 (via feedmail 9-beta-7 I)
To: Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: The GFDL is not yet a common license
From: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: The Debian Project
X-URL: http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/
User-Agent: Gnus/5.090008 (Oort Gnus v0.08) Emacs/21.2 (i386-pc-linux-gnu)
(i386-pc-linux-gnu)
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
X-Time: Thu Nov 14 23:21:39 2002
X-Face: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/;Y^gTjR\T^B'fbeuVGiyKrvbfKJl!^e|e:iu(kJ6c|QYB57LP*|t
YlP~HF/=h:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:6Cj0kd#4]*D,|0djf'CVlXkI,aV4\}?d_KEqsN{Nnt7
78OsbQ[56/!nisvyB/uA5Q.{)gm6?q.j71ww.b9b]-sG8zNt%KkIaxWg1VcjZk[hBQ]j~`Wq
Xl,y1a!(6`UM{~'X[Y_,Bv+}=L\SS*mA8=s;!=O`ja|@PEzbi0}Qp,`Z\:6:OmRi*
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 23:21:39 -0600
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.6 required=5.0
tests=NOSPAM_INC,SIGNATURE_SHORT_DENSE,SPAM_PHRASE_01_02,
USER_AGENT
version=2.41
X-Spam-Level:
Hi,
I would suggest that a so called common license should
actually be on, say 5% of the packages to be called common? Or even
1%? Since the GFDL is not yet close, this is not time for this
proposal.
manoj
--
Not that I have anything much against redundancy. But I said that
already. Larry Wall in [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Bug#139437: marked as done (base-files: /usr/share/common-licenses should contain the FDL)
Your message dated Thu, 14 Nov 2002 23:25:28 -0600
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line The GFDL is not yet a common license
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 22 Mar 2002 07:27:00 +
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Mar 22 01:27:00 2002
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from (localhost) [140.77.13.89]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 16oJS0-0003m2-00; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 01:27:00 -0600
Received: from mquinson by localhost with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 16oB7b-0006MU-00; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 23:33:23 +0100
From: Martin Quinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: base-files: /usr/share/common-licenses should contain the FDL
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailer: bug 3.3.10.1
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 23:33:23 +0100
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: base-files
Version: 3.0.2
Severity: wishlist
Hello,
i've half a dozen version of the GNU Free Documentation License on my
harddisk. I think it would be a good thing to put it along with the other
licences.
Thanks, Mt.
-- System Information
Debian Release: 3.0
Kernel Version: Linux blaise 2.4.17 #1 Tue Jan 29 13:01:56 PST 2002 i686 unknown
Versions of the packages base-files depends on:
ii base-passwd3.4.1 Debian Base System Password/Group Files
ii gawk 3.1.0-3GNU awk, a pattern scanning and processing l
^^^ (Provides virtual package awk)
--- Begin /etc/inputrc (modified conffile)
set input-meta on
set output-meta on
set convert-meta off
set bell-style none
--- End /etc/inputrc
---
Received: (at 139437-done) by bugs.debian.org; 15 Nov 2002 05:31:25 +
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Nov 14 23:31:24 2002
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from pcp559992pcs.rthfrd01.tn.comcast.net
(glaurung.green-gryphon.com) [68.52.105.148]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18CZ4e-00020t-00; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 23:31:24 -0600
Received: from glaurung.green-gryphon.com ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [127.0.0.1])
by glaurung.green-gryphon.com (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) with ESMTP id
gAF5PU4J015102;
Thu, 14 Nov 2002 23:25:30 -0600
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by glaurung.green-gryphon.com (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id
gAF5PS9q015098;
Thu, 14 Nov 2002 23:25:28 -0600
X-Mailer: emacs 21.2.2 (via feedmail 9-beta-7 I)
To: Martin Quinson [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: The GFDL is not yet a common license
From: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: The Debian Project
X-URL: http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/
User-Agent: Gnus/5.090008 (Oort Gnus v0.08) Emacs/21.2 (i386-pc-linux-gnu)
(i386-pc-linux-gnu)
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
X-Time: Thu Nov 14 23:25:28 2002
X-Face: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/;Y^gTjR\T^B'fbeuVGiyKrvbfKJl!^e|e:iu(kJ6c|QYB57LP*|t
YlP~HF/=h:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:6Cj0kd#4]*D,|0djf'CVlXkI,aV4\}?d_KEqsN{Nnt7
78OsbQ[56/!nisvyB/uA5Q.{)gm6?q.j71ww.b9b]-sG8zNt%KkIaxWg1VcjZk[hBQ]j~`Wq
Xl,y1a!(6`UM{~'X[Y_,Bv+}=L\SS*mA8=s;!=O`ja|@PEzbi0}Qp,`Z\:6:OmRi*
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 23:25:28 -0600
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.6 required=5.0
tests=NOSPAM_INC,SIGNATURE_SHORT_DENSE,SPAM_PHRASE_01_02,
USER_AGENT
version=2.41
X-Spam-Level:
Hi,
I would suggest that a so called common license should
actually be on, say 5% of the packages to be called common? Or even
1%? Since the GFDL is not yet close, this is not time for this
proposal.
manoj
--
The world will end in 5 minutes. Please log out.
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
