Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
At the end of the process, I would like to have a glossary
(maybe included into the policy)
To simplify the discussion, I created:
http://wiki.debian.org/PolicyGlossary
It contain important term and links to policy.
ciao
cate
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Russ Allbery wrote:
"Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
OTOH, the 'Release' file uses the dak terminology, and the name is
encoded on some tools. The most visible is apt: apt_preferences(5) for
pining use the term "Component".
Because is not a urgent topic, and (IMO) there are
"Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OTOH, the 'Release' file uses the dak terminology, and the name is
> encoded on some tools. The most visible is apt: apt_preferences(5) for
> pining use the term "Component".
>
> Because is not a urgent topic, and (IMO) there are some other
> t
Russ Allbery wrote:
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Russ Allbery writes:
So as a purist, I would prefer `category'. `Area' works too since it
refers to an `area' in the FTP site.
I did a bit more research based on Osamu Aoki's excellent work.
Currently, these things are referred to
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>> "Adam D. Barratt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> For what it's worth, and possibly to add more confusion, dak uses the
>>> term "component" in this case.
>> Also, I guess my first reaction isn't as conclusive as I'd like, since
>>
Re: Russ Allbery 2008-03-30 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> The control field for specifying admin, net, utils, etc. is "Section", so
> >> I think Policy wins here and main, contrib, and non-free should be called
> >> categories.
>
> > For what it's worth, and possibly to add more confusion, dak uses the
Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#473439: debian-policy: Debian Policy inconsistent
with Developer's Reference"):
> "Adam D. Barratt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > For what it's worth, and possibly to add more confusion, dak uses the
> > term &q
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 12:07:38PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> "Adam D. Barratt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sun, 2008-03-30 at 11:30 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> Meike Reichle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >>> When doing my NM I noticed an inconsistency between the Debian Policy
> >
"Adam D. Barratt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 2008-03-30 at 11:30 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Meike Reichle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> When doing my NM I noticed an inconsistency between the Debian Policy
>>> and the Developer's Reference concerning the use of the terms "section"
On Sun, 2008-03-30 at 11:30 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Meike Reichle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > When doing my NM I noticed an inconsistency between the Debian Policy
> > and the Developer's Reference concerning the use of the terms "section"
> > and "category".
[...]
> The control field
Meike Reichle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When doing my NM I noticed an inconsistency between the Debian Policy
> and the Developer's Reference concerning the use of the terms "section"
> and "category".
>
> The Debian Developer's Reference says in chapter 4.6.1:
>
> "The 'main' section of the
Package: debian-policy,debian-reference
Version: 3.7.3.0
Severity: normal
Hi!
When doing my NM I noticed an inconsistency between the Debian Policy
and the Developer's Reference concerning the use of the terms "section"
and "category".
The Debian Developer's Reference says in chapter 4.6.1:
12 matches
Mail list logo
