Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:22:33 +0200, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>James is ftp-master, DAM, autobuilder admin, and part of the
>>debian-admin team as well. He does the things he does the way he does
>>them not because he doesn't like you, b
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:22:33 +0200, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>James is ftp-master, DAM, autobuilder admin, and part of the
>debian-admin team as well. He does the things he does the way he does
>them not because he doesn't like you, but because that's the most
>efficient use of hi
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Agustin Martin Domingo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Last time I read about that, if is byte compiled it should depend on
virtual package 'emacsen' (provided by all emacs flavours), since
otherwise emacs-package-install failed if no emacsen was installed.
If that is true, s
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 12:22:33PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> James is ftp-master, DAM, autobuilder admin, and part of the
> debian-admin team as well.
Wow!
--
gram
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Scripsit Agustin Martin Domingo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Last time I read about that, if is byte compiled it should depend on
> virtual package 'emacsen' (provided by all emacs flavours), since
> otherwise emacs-package-install failed if no emacsen was installed.
If that is true, shouldn't it be c
On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 05:32:11PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Policy is not everything that counts. Just because policy doesnt say
> > something it means it is good to do it.
>
> Of course but I think if the developper did something is because he
On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 08:44:01PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Yes. This way to show issues is the right one but the James way is
> not. He doesn't do a suggestion but an exigency. This is wrong.
He did the right thing.
> Yes. The reson of my first mail is exactly this. I want make some trou
Peter S Galbraith wrote:
AFAIK, you need to depend on emacs itself (and not emacs-common) if you
byte-compile it. I _think_ stuff can break if you don't, but I'm vague
on why. Search the debian-emacsen archives. I split off a package
because of that issue a while back, but the seperate -el packa
Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Peter S Galbraith
>
> | AFAIK, you need to depend on emacs itself (and not emacs-common) if you
> | byte-compile it. I _think_ stuff can break if you don't, but I'm vague
> | on why. Search the debian-emacsen archives. I split off a package
> | b
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> [ I'm including the debian-devel list in CC since I appreciate the
>> opinion of others developpers ]
>>
>> James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > This package is dubiously small enough as it
Op vr 17-10-2003, om 01:52 schreef Otavio Salvador:
> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Of course but I think if the developper did something is because he
> >> think this is better and this should be respected (if doesn't broke
> >> the policy)
> >
> > You've had about 8 people te
* Peter S Galbraith
| AFAIK, you need to depend on emacs itself (and not emacs-common) if you
| byte-compile it. I _think_ stuff can break if you don't, but I'm vague
| on why. Search the debian-emacsen archives. I split off a package
| because of that issue a while back, but the seperate -el
Am 16.10.03 um 20:44:01 schrieb Otavio Salvador:
> Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [6 lines of explanation]
> Yes. This way to show issues is the right one but the James way is
> not. He doesn't do a suggestion but an exigency. This is wrong.
Oh, so you expect a very long and detai
* Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-10-16 20:44]:
> Yes. This way to show issues is the right one but the James way is
> not. He doesn't do a suggestion but an exigency. This is wrong.
I've seen package being rejected with a reason plus a note saying
something like "but if you don't agree
On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 08:48:03PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Peter Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > And you still havn't told us what you didn't understand when James
> > wrote: 'If depending on emacs bothers you, make it a suggests.' They
> > *don't* have to have emacs installed!
>
>
Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ I'm including the debian-devel list in CC since I appreciate the
> opinion of others developpers ]
>
> James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This package is dubiously small enough as it is without being split
> > into two. There's no need t
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Of course but I think if the developper did something is because he
>> think this is better and this should be respected (if doesn't broke
>> the policy)
>
> You've had about 8 people tell you that what you did was a bad idea, along
> with some pretty
Peter Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> I disagree. Forcing the user to spend to much time micromanage which
>>> stuff he wants is not to the bennefit of the user. Neither for the
>>> unexperienced user nor the power user.
>>
>> More or less. O
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 16-Oct-03, 13:11 (CDT), Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yes but to my sense is really better to enduser have this packages
>> splited since the search-citeseer can work (without problems) without
>> the -el part and I want provide thi
On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 05:32:11PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> And no one is obliged to do all like James think. The package follow
> >> the policy and doesn't have any point in policy talking
Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> More or less. Doesn't make sense include a depends of Emacs in
> search-citeseer and the -el part depends of this. The better option is
> split in two package each with your depends and needs.
No.
> The sugestion of James is not right to include emac
Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I disagree. Forcing the user to spend to much time micromanage which
>> stuff he wants is not to the bennefit of the user. Neither for the
>> unexperienced user nor the power user.
>
> More or less. One search show both packages and user can read what
Peter Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> The Social Contract say: The focus is the user. So, to enduser is more
>> easy provide two packages and he can choice what to do.
>
> I disagree. Forcing the user to spend to much time micromanage which
>
Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> And no one is obliged to do all like James think. The package follow
>> the policy and doesn't have any point in policy talking about size
>> requeriments.
>
> Policy is not everything that counts. Just be
On 16-Oct-03, 13:11 (CDT), Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes but to my sense is really better to enduser have this packages
> splited since the search-citeseer can work (without problems) without
> the -el part and I want provide this option for our users.
My sense is exactly the o
Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The Social Contract say: The focus is the user. So, to enduser is more
> easy provide two packages and he can choice what to do.
I disagree. Forcing the user to spend to much time micromanage which
stuff he wants is not to the bennefit of the user. Ne
Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And no one is obliged to do all like James think. The package follow
> the policy and doesn't have any point in policy talking about size
> requeriments.
Policy is not everything that counts. Just because policy doesnt say
something it means it is goo
Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [ I'm including the debian-devel list in CC since I appreciate the
>> opinion of others developpers ]
>
>> James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> This package is dubiously small enough as it is witho
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 16-Oct-03, 10:50 (CDT), Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [ I'm including the debian-devel list in CC since I appreciate the
>> opinion of others developpers ]
>
> Okay, since you ask:
Perfect :-)
>> James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ I'm including the debian-devel list in CC since I appreciate the
> opinion of others developpers ]
> James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> This package is dubiously small enough as it is without being split
>> into two. There's no need to separ
On 16-Oct-03, 10:50 (CDT), Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ I'm including the debian-devel list in CC since I appreciate the
> opinion of others developpers ]
Okay, since you ask:
> James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > This package is dubiously small enough as it is without
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[ I'm including the debian-devel list in CC since I appreciate the
opinion of others developpers ]
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This package is dubiously small enough as it is without being split
> into two. There's no need to separate
32 matches
Mail list logo
