On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 11:58:56PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
Yes, but if I amend the proposal like this, then it needs to be seconded
all over again, doesn't it?
I don't see why. You need two seconds to go from proposal to
amendment. To go from amendment to accepted, you need
On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 10:58:19PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
Yes, but if I amend the proposal like this, then it needs to be seconded
all over again, doesn't it?
[...]
Well, they don't invalidate it, but they change it from the one that the
seconders seconded. How do I know their second
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
retitle 66023 [AMENDMENT 06/05/2001] Treat plugins and shared libraries
differently
Bug#66023: [PROPOSAL] Treat plugins and shared libraries differently
Changed Bug title.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
retitle 66023 [AMENDMENT 06/05/2001] Treat plugins and shared libraries
differently
thanks
Four developers have seconded this proposal, so according to 3.3 Creating
an Amendment of policy-process document, this proposal is an amendment.
I'm not sure about the date, the document says [AMENDMENT
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 01:22:50PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
I would prefer to let this rest until the initial amendment is in Policy,
since it's not very easy to get seconds and this amendment is already
overdue.
Surely it's possible to change a proposed amendment before it is
accepted?
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 05:41:44PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 01:22:50PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
I would prefer to let this rest until the initial amendment is in Policy,
since it's not very easy to get seconds and this amendment is already
overdue.
Surely
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 04:53:12PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
Yes, but if I amend the proposal like this, then it needs to be seconded all
over again, doesn't it?
I don't see why. You need two seconds to go from proposal to
amendment. To go from amendment to accepted, you need
consensus on
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 01:03:09PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
Manoj and I are only two people. Handling policy bugs is hard for a
number of reasons:
(1) There are a lot of them, and many of them are now quite long.
(2) We don't have any official editorial rights, so unless a proposal
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 12:18:46PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I made one posting with such a list, but I've been swamped
recently. I can start an automated posting of a list; with the master
list being in policy CVS so that either Julian or I can updfate it;
people can send me
Richard == Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Richard On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 12:37:22PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
+to by third party executables (binaries of other packages),
+should be installed in the subdirectories of the
Richard
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 11:36:41PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
+to by third party executables (binaries of other packages),
+should be installed in the subdirectories of the
Richard ^^^
Richard I would drop that the, to make clear that
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+Shared object files (i.e. filelibsoname.so/file) that are
Seth Arnold noticed (in a private mail to me) how this stuff in parenthesis
shouldn't be there (my mistake), because the plugins can be named
differently -- the file name makes no practical
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Re: Shared libs vs. plugins.
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], debian-policy@lists.debian.org
I'd prefer if people seconded the diff in #66023 :) and then we can refine
that stuff further if necessary.
agreed, let's get this solved.
(Seconded).
- End
Josip == Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Josip Our inability to get this into Policy is appaling, isn't it? :
You are being too hard on yourself. Putting together a proposal
that gathers seconds is non trivial; one has to convince people of
the rationale, come up with the
Anthony == Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Anthony Pester people on IRC to second ones that you think are good ideas but
Anthony haven't received any attention.
This should be anyone on this list who is interesterd in the
policy proposals (if you are not interested in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hi,
I second this proposal, subject to the typographical and
grammatical corrections included below.
manoj
--- policy.sgml.prevMon Jul 10 11:01:16 2000
+++ policy.sgml Mon Jul 10 11:41:12 2000
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 12:37:22PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I second this proposal, subject to the typographical and
grammatical corrections included below.
Thanks. :)
--- policy.sgml.prevMon Jul 10 11:01:16 2000
+++ policy.sgml Mon Jul
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 12:37:22PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
+to by third party executables (binaries of other packages),
+should be installed in the subdirectories of the
^^^
I would drop that the, to make clear that packages can create
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 08:34:43PM -0700, Seth Arnold wrote:
proposals. (Though in the section about seconding, it makes especial
reference to registered Debian developers. Perhaps for the purposes of
getting this bug taken care of, simply being An Interested User counts
for proposals. If this
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 12:52:10AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
Wichert, I think Geez, again? is the incorrect response to Daniel's
mail. Bugs #42399 and #65345 against debian-policy have been outstanding
for 1 year and 268 days and 322 days. #65345 even has a patch against
lintian,
(missed this mail in my enormous inbox, sorry :)
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 08:34:43PM -0700, Seth Arnold wrote:
They need to be exempt from the rule for shlibs file, too.
See my attempt in #66023...
Aye, too true. It may be easier for the proposal to not decide the paths
involved -- it
@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Old proposals again (Re: [PROPOSAL] Re: Shared libs vs. plugins.)
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 12:48:12 +0100
From: Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk
Josip Rodin wrote:
Nobody explicitely said they second it, and nobody explicitely said they
object.
Several people
- Forwarded message from Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk -
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 12:48:12 +0100
From: Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk
Subject: Re: Old proposals again (Re: [PROPOSAL] Re: Shared libs vs. plugins.)
To: Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: Julian Gilbey [EMAIL PROTECTED
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Can any developer second policy proposals? If so, I second this one too...
(I have a package libwine that puts dynamically-loaded stuff into
/usr/lib/wine)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine
* Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010426 11:18]:
Previously Daniel Kobras wrote:
For now I added a lintian overrides for this, but Sean asked me to bring up
discussion here to clarify what lintian should treat as shared lib in the
future in order to properly solve this issue.
Geez,
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 02:13:41PM -0700, Seth Arnold wrote:
For now I added a lintian overrides for this, but Sean asked me to bring
up
discussion here to clarify what lintian should treat as shared lib in the
future in order to properly solve this issue.
Geez, again? Basically
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 11:42:41PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
Wichert, I think Geez, again? is the incorrect response to Daniel's
mail. Bugs #42399 and #65345 against debian-policy have been outstanding
for 1 year and 268 days and 322 days. #65345 even has a patch against
lintian, though it
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 12:52:10AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
(2) We don't have any official editorial rights, so unless a proposal
has been seconded in the standard way, it's difficult to figure
out what to do with it.
Pester people on IRC to second ones that you think are good ideas
* Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010426 14:54]:
Our inability to get this into Policy is appaling, isn't it? :
Especially since both you and Wichert have put effort into this -- that
is two possible seconds for a proposal. I've taken a closer look at the
policy-process text and I do not think I
29 matches
Mail list logo
