Re: package sections (2K packages problem)

Je 1999/07/23(5)/23:07, Wichert Akkerman montris sian geniecon skribante: [2K packages problem: more more sections, hierarchical sections, etc] > There have been proposals of using keywords to make it easy to search > for packages, and people suggesting that we make the sections more > hierarchic

Bug#41829: debian-policy: Documents stored in /usr/doc/debian-policy, should be /usr/share/doc/debian-policy

Package: debian-policy Version: 3.0.0.0 Severity: normal The documents are stored in /usr/doc/debian-policy, but the Debian Policy itself says, in section 6.3, that "Text documentation should be installed in a directory /usr/share/doc/package, where package is the name of the package ...", so th

package sectinos

The topic of package sections has apparently come up once more on debian-devel. It seems everyone agrees that the current method of putting packages in one of 10 or so sections is not good enough for the huge amount of packages we have accumulated. There have been proposals of using keywords to

Bug#41232: dpkg-dev: Required changes to dpkg source for Policy amendment in bug#41232 [PATCH]

Package: dpkg-dev Version: 1.4.1.4 Severity: wishlist [Watch your To and Cc lines on replies.] The policy amendment #41232 (Build-time dependencies on binary packages) will probably be incorporated into a future edition of the Policy documents. The amendment requires a change to dpkg source. Th

Bug#40766: PROPOSED] Rewrite of "Configuration files" section

On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, Julian Gilbey wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 18, 1999 at 02:45:04AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: > > > Do you know of any conffiles which are not configuration files? The > > > concept of a conffile which is not a configuration file is bizarre. > > > > /etc/init.d/* and /etc/cron.d/*

Processed: got two seconds

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > retitle 41232 [AMENDMENT 1999-07-23] Build-time dependencies on binary > packages Bug#41232: debian-policy: [PROPOSAL] Build-time dependencies on binary packages Changed bug title. > severity 41232 normal Bug#41232: [AMENDMENT 1999-07-23] Build-time d

Bug#41232: debian-policy: [PROPOSAL] Build-time dependencies on binary packages

I second this proposal. -- "04a94df3723d0d4e76f1f34d5146c6dc" (a truly random sig)

Re: Bug#41232: debian-policy: [PROPOSAL] Build-time dependencies on binary packages

> Yes, consider that a typo. I will not submit another patch as the > fix is obvious. Yep, that's what I thought as I seconded the proposal :-) Roman

Re: Bug#41232: debian-policy: [PROPOSAL] Build-time dependencies on binary packages

On Fri, Jul 23, 1999 at 06:23:09PM +0200, Roman Hodek wrote: > Isn't that wrong? I think Build-Indep-{Depends,Conflicts} apply only > to 'binary-indep' (and transitive to 'binary'), but not to 'build'. > Otherwise, you'd have to install Build-Indep-Depends also for the pure > build... Yes, conside

Re: Bug#41232: debian-policy: [PROPOSAL] Build-time dependencies on binary packages

> - The fields change as follows: >Depends -> Build-Depends >Arch-Depends(removed as suggested by Roman Hodek) >Indep-Depends -> Build-Indep-Depends >Conflicts -> Build-Conflicts >Arch-Conflicts (

Bug#41232: debian-policy: [PROPOSAL] Build-time dependencies on binary packages

I have re-read the discussion, and I think some points raised are valid. I'm hereby changing my proposal. The proposal has been seconded by Edward Betts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. I need his support for these changes, or a second from someone else. And I'm still looking for another second. Summary of t

Bug#40706: AMENDMENT 17/7/99] /usr/share/doc vs. /usr/doc transition

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The fact that a single probe into the location derived using > the pacjage name is no longe guaranteed to work is indeed a technical > fault. First of all, this hardly the only proposal which could adress that concern (see other proposals b

Bug#41729: PROPOSAL] Modify dpkg-buildpackage to handle FHS move

> Julian Gilbey wrote: > > The dpkg-buildpackage program (and maybe autobuilders as well?) could > > be modified so that after the .deb is built, before anything is signed > > or similar, something like the following is done (within any necessary > > fakeroot-type environment, of course): > > This

Bug#40180: packaging manual typo

Hi, Thanks. I have foxed this in my local sources, and this should be part of the next upload. manoj -- Statements by respected authorities which tend to agree with a writer's viewpoint are always handy. -- Amrom Katz Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Bug#40706: Supporting users.

You don't care about the user. It seems that you just like to have your distribution meeting many TLA standards and being the right distribution for YOU. The objections to this proposal were all to silly, too small.. too (arg! I can't find a word... too.. picky?). Is it about the potential co

Re: Bug#40706: AMENDMENT 17/7/99] /usr/share/doc vs. /usr/doc transition

On Wed, Jul 21, 1999 at 03:13:55AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote: > Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > For multi binary packages I tend to have separate installation > > script for each binary package. Is that not the case generally? (I > > also tend to have the package name in a lot of maintain