On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 08:02:17PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
If you have the time to sit down and do the jobs you've just listed,
fantastic, please do it [...]
Well, I already have my hands full with release trivia, but there are
definitely some things I can do. My concern has been that the
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 09:03:57AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
How about: must be compatible with and should comply with the FHS.
(Here I'm using RFC meanings of must and should; if this is a problem
at the moment, try should be compatible with and ideally should
comply with).
Is there an
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 07:09:03PM +1000, Edward C. Lang wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 06:57:19PM -0500, Thomas Smith wrote:
How about:
The location of all installed files and directories must be compatible with
the
Linux Filesystem Heirarchy Standard (FHS), and should be compliant
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 09:17:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 09:03:57AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
How about: must be compatible with and should comply with the FHS.
(Here I'm using RFC meanings of must and should; if this is a problem
at the moment, try should be
retitle 66023 [ACCEPTED 22/05/2001] Treat plugins and shared libraries
differently
forwarded 66023 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
thanks
More than two weeks have passed since the last messages about this, and we
had a consensus about it. (I could write a new patch, if necessary, but I'd
rather leave it to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Julian Gilbey wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 09:09:03AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
I should probably shut up about this, but something has always
bugged me (which means I'm probably doing it wrong).
Take for example
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
severity 72335 normal
Bug#72335: [PROPOSAL] Optional build-arch and build-indep targets for
debian/rules
Severity set to `normal'.
title 72335 [AMENDMENT 23/5/2001] Optional build-arch and build-indep targets
for debian/rules
Unknown command or
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 09:17:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
(The exceptions we allow are cases where (a) the FHS doesn't really say
anything useful, like where CVS repositories should go, and (b) /usr/doc,
which we're aiming for compliance with anyway. Are there more?)
As for (a), the FHS
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 12:12:30PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
As for (b), no, we're aiming for compatibility! Grrr! :-)
No, I mean we're aiming to move all the docs to /usr/share/doc for woody
anyway; so this issue is just about done with anyway. (Well, except that
the existance of the
9 matches
Mail list logo
