I request permission to make the following excecutable files part
of a package:
usr/X11R6/bin/Login.app (login.app)
usr/X11R6/bin/Mixer.app (mixer.app)
the upstream authors use this names for the executables. The
.app part is there because that's the NeXT way of naming
programs. The upper case
On Sun, 12 Apr 1998, [iso-8859-1] Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
Let's forget the policy. And let's take an average Linux user, using the
standard command shell (me using bash =)). This user uses the tab key to
travel through the filesystem and reach the farthest (?) files. This user
(who seems
Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Would adding a
ln -s ChangeLog.gz /usr/doc/xyzzy/changelog.gz
to your rules file as David Engel suggested be acceptable? It complies
with the letter of policy and doesn't force you to change the upstream
documentation.
While this solution is
On Sun, Apr 12, 1998 at 02:03:50PM -0400, Brian White wrote:
It is policy that package that depend on non-free packages must go into
contrib. However, what if a package depends on a virtual package that
is only provided by packages outside of main?
This came up in Bug#16652 where javalex
Jason Gunthorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Source
This specifies who is providing this archive. In the case of
Debian the string will read 'Debian'. Other providers may use
their own string
Label
This carries the encompassing name of the
Hi,
Ok, I give up. As Ian suggested, maybe we do need
libc-kheaders package. The upstream version could be the same as the
kernel version, and it shall be updated as libc6 development
will. This way, there shall be less linkage with the kernel-*
packages.
I am tired of
Hi,
Guy == Guy Maor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Guy Jason Gunthorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Source
This specifies who is providing this archive. In the case of
Debian the string will read 'Debian'. Other providers may use
their own string
Label
On 12 Apr 1998, Guy Maor wrote:
Jason Gunthorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Source
This specifies who is providing this archive. In the case of
Debian the string will read 'Debian'. Other providers may use
their own string
Label
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
I think we need a symlink such as the one above, in cases where the upstream
changelog has a different name to the one we want.
This also makes more sense than merely renaming the upstream changelog
because other documentation included with the package
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Philip Hands) wrote on 11.04.98 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Philip Hands) wrote on 10.04.98 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I have one point to add to this. Handling files not mentioned
in the *.list file was one way of several packages to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 01.04.98 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The criteria should be:
a) Do you need a R6 version of that progeram, and you are sure no
other version shall do? then use /usr/X11R6/bin
b) Or else, use /usr/bin/X11
To me, that means the package that
Dale Scheetz wrote:
On Sun, 12 Apr 1998, [iso-8859-1] Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
Let's forget the policy. And let's take an average Linux user, using the
standard command shell (me using bash =)). This user uses the tab key to
travel through the filesystem and reach the farthest (?)
[CC: to Brian since I'm not sure he's following debian-policy]
On 13 Apr 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
Ok, I give up. As Ian suggested, maybe we do need
libc-kheaders package. The upstream version could be the same as the
kernel version, and it shall be updated as libc6
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
JJ == JJ TROUP [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
JJ This is about a point of communication, and I've provided at least
JJ 3 examples where communication is improved because there is not
JJ one primary maintainer who is the point of communication.
I think there are
Hi,
Could all of you reading this review bug #17532? Question: what severity
should it actually be?
-Jim
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Mon, 13 Apr 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could all of you reading this review bug #17532? Question: what severity
should it actually be?
In the bug report, you said:
this bug has prevented ALL logins (possibly including
single-user/maintaince mode;
On 13 Apr 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
Ok, I give up. As Ian suggested, maybe we do need
libc-kheaders package. The upstream version could be the same as the
kernel version, and it shall be updated as libc6 development
will. This way, there shall be less linkage with the
On Mon, Apr 13, 1998 at 11:47:24AM +1000, Martin Mitchell wrote:
Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think we need a symlink such as the one above, in cases where the upstream
changelog has a different name to the one we want.
This also makes more sense than merely renaming the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is already Debian's policy that the maintainer modify the documents to be
up to date with the debian package.
I could not locate this in section 5 of the policy manual, can you tell me
where to find it please?
Even if this is the case, I would still suggest the
On 12 Apr 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
James == James Troup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
James Christian Schwarz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
4. A unique point of communication. In case of questions WRT a
packages' `interface', it's much easier for other maintainers to
get an
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But libpgjava and biss-awt both suggest jdk1.1-runtime instead. I couldn't
actually find jdk1.1-runtime anywhere to see if it provides
java-virtual-machine, shouldn't it be in non-free/devel?
It can be found on www.jimpick.com. They are orphaned.
At
On Sun, 12 Apr 1998, Marcelo E. Magallón wrote:
I request permission to make the following excecutable files part
of a package:
usr/X11R6/bin/Login.app (login.app)
usr/X11R6/bin/Mixer.app (mixer.app)
the upstream authors use this names for the executables. The
.app part is there
Hi,
All righty then. This needs coperation between me, the
kernel-* package mantianers, and the libc6-dev maintainer.
I am goint to release the updated kernel-package which shall
have an extra target called libc-kheaders. make-kpkg shall be
modified to accept this, and it
Hi,
Scott == Scott Ellis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scott deity/apt
Scott We seem to have managed well enough with the multiple
Scott maintainer model, although I must admit that I've been the only
Scott person doing releases, there isn't a particular reason why
Scott someone else on the team
On Mon, Apr 13, 1998 at 11:47:53AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The XFree86 and CVS development teams maybe exception, but I
suspect that like Deity, there is a strict division of responsibility
in those teams as well.
XFree86's internal structure is largely invisible, and judging by
On 11 Apr 1998, Adam P. Harris wrote:
I see four possible valid parties for closing bugs:
* party is the maintainer
* party is the submitter
* party has been given permission by the maintainer to close the bug
(i.e., the maintainer is soliciting support from another developer
On 13 Apr 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
libc6-dev (= 2.0.7pre1-4). I suggest that the next version of
libc6-dev does not have symlinks in /usr/include (libc-kheaders shall
create directories in /usr/include), and it should depend on
libc-kheaders. APT would then deconfigure/remove
27 matches
Mail list logo
