Hi Russ et al,
The patch below documents the Architecture field. It doesn't cover
architecture tuples yet, but presumably once the description of
architectures is in good shape it would not be hard to add a mapping
from Debian arches to pathnames to section 9.1.5.
Some concerns:
- what should
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
unarchive 190753
Bug #190753 {Done: Russ Allbery r...@debian.org} [debian-policy] [AMENDMENT
12/04/2004] frown on programs in PATH with language extentions
Unarchived Bug 190753
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Goswin von Brederlow writes (Re: Bug#664257: multiarch tuples are not
documented/defined):
It is a bug in Debian: The multiarch tuples are not documented/defined
in Debian.
They are now documented on the wiki, as previously noted in this
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Clearly I'm not the person to convince others to add multiarch tupples
to their specs.
I don't see why or why not. But it isn't really about convincing ---
I'd be hard pressed to find someone who _doesn't_ want this stuff
documented better.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Dear Russ, Joey, Debian Med team and evrybody,
in 2010 I discussed with you in this bug (#190753) about our policy of removing
suffixes from program names, and the harm it causes by breaking compatibilty
between Debian system using packaged programs, and other UNIX system which
installed the
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 06:01:52PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Dear Russ, Joey, Debian Med team and evrybody,
Much has been said, and I am not criticizing the points that have been made
in favor of renaming, nor I object to promote them to the developers at the
moment where they chose a name
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 18:01:52 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
I would like to know people's feeling about this.
Seeing how you're about the only one in favour of removing the policy
should, I'm not sure why you think raising it to tech-ctte will change
that.
Cheers,
Julien
--
To
* Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org [120426 02:08]:
Thanks for the information, I thought it was obsoleted when the closing of
bugs
became versionned.
Before closing become versioned, the situation was more complex:
Before, a upload of a .changes would behave differently depending
whether
Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org writes:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 18:01:52 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
I would like to know people's feeling about this.
Seeing how you're about the only one in favour of removing the policy
should, I'm not sure why you think raising it to tech-ctte will
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 06:01:52PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Dear Russ, Joey, Debian Med team and evrybody,
As proposed in 2010 (http://bugs.debian.org/190753#98), I would like to ask
the
Technical Comittee to reconsider our Policy, and restrict it to cases where
the
name of a program
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 07:11:37PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 06:01:52PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Dear Russ, Joey, Debian Med team and evrybody,
As proposed in 2010 (http://bugs.debian.org/190753#98), I would like to ask
the
Technical Comittee to reconsider
Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr writes:
The constitution does not grant the tech commitee the authority to
override the policy process.
Hm, I don't believe that's the case. Constitution 6.1.1 explicitly says:
The Technical Committee may:
1. Decide on any matter of
Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr writes:
5. No detailed design work.
The Technical Committee does not engage in design of new proposals
and policies. Such design work should be carried out by individuals
privately or together and discussed in ordinary
Charles Plessy wrote:
As proposed in 2010 (http://bugs.debian.org/190753#98), I would like to ask
the
Technical Comittee to reconsider our Policy, and restrict it to cases where
the
name of a program is an interface (http://bugs.debian.org/190753#128).
Actually, my message
14 matches
Mail list logo
