Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.6.1.0
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
diff -r -u debian-policy-3.6.1.0.orig/mime-policy.sgml
debian-policy-3.6.1.0/mime-policy.sgml
--- debian-policy-3.6.1.0.orig/mime-policy.sgml 2003-09-22 13:19:25.0
+0200
+++ debian-policy-3.6.1.0/mime-policy.sgml
On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 14:38:31 +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I suggest you take it to the non-debian FHS list (URL, anybody?).
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freestandards-fhs-discuss
(as found on http://www.pathname.com/fhs/).
HTH,
Ray
--
The software `wizard' is the single
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 14:14:37 +0200, Gerd Knorr wrote:
lesstif focuses on reimplementing the version 1.2 API (unless it has
changed recently and I did'nt notice).
The operative word being focuses... Quoting
http://www.lesstif.org/FAQ.html#QU1.14 :
:* Will LessTif be Motif2.1 Compliant?
:
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 13:10:55 -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
* DFSG free programs with crypto can be made and (re)distributed
from the US now, as long as you don't consciously export it to
one of 7 countries which are on a special blacklist
Of course that raises
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 22:11:21 +0100, Arthur Korn wrote:
We do consciously export crypto to the blacklisted countries if we put
it into main, don't we?
I doubt it. I strongly suspect Transmeta's lawyers have gone over this issue
before (witness ftp.kernel.org/pub/welcome.msg and
I second the proposal.
On Sun, Jan 09, 2000 at 10:35:16 +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
Are these environment variables,
Yes.
It would be nice if more programs supported them (I'm thinking of nsgmls in
particular - at work, http connections to the outside only work through the
proxy, and I've
On Tue, Oct 26, 1999 at 14:46:03 +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
Are there any objections?
This is not an objection, but I wish there were slightly more accurate term
than binary package, because some binary packages don't contain binaries
(e.g. just data and/or scripts). binary package could be
close 46516
reopen 46516
retitle 46516 [AMENDMENT 04/10/1999] MIME support sub-policy
severity 46516 normal
thanks
The proposal was seconded by Wichert Akkerman, Alexander Koch, Raul Miller
and Chris Waters; no serious objections have been raised so far.
Ray
--
Obsig: developing a new sig
[I'm replying in public, as others may wonder about this too - hope you
don't mind]
On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 03:37:53 -0700, Seth R Arnold wrote:
If you don't mind my asking, why not suggest the mime-support package?
This is per update-mime's documentation. The underlying idea being to make
it
On Fri, Sep 17, 1999 at 01:41:20 -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
On Sep 17, Anthony Towns wrote:
That is, that the only consideration about whether a package should be
added to main, contrib or non-free be its licensing terms.
Packages that are `too buggy to support' or `fail to meet policy
On Thu, Aug 05, 1999 at 15:54:49 +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
Wusses. :-)
Huh? What does that mean?
wuss is US slang for wimp or perhaps coward. What netgod probably
means is that this proposal is basically a cop-out, postponing the work
until after potato's release. I agree with that, but
On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 23:44:08 -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
I'm concerned about what happens when packages start using /usr/share/man.
Suppose I convert alien to put it's man pages there. Alien is arch
independant and there is no reason someone using stable can't install the
latest version from
On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 00:29:29 +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
On the /usr/share/doc vs. /usr/doc issue
AOL!
I think that with a change as large as this, people must expect
inconsistencies if they perform partial upgrades/downgrades.
We avoid these inconsistencies where reasonably
On Thu, Dec 10, 1998 at 09:46:31 +0100, Brederlow wrote:
When considering poratibility and code cleaness, the only answere one
can give to this question is CC=cc.
What about CXX? What about the C9X standard when it's finished? Should we
have CC=c89 then?
No sourcecode should rely on gcc or
On Thu, Dec 10, 1998 at 15:40:23 +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
I agree that this would be a more pleasing solution. Currently the
packages.debian.org address database is based on the maintainer
addresses from the Packages file, so that would have to be changed.
Joey?
What do you want me
On Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 13:00:58 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
AFAIK we tell developers to use cc, not gcc to compile programs. But in
4.1 the policy insists on using gcc. So it's not easy to compile all
packages automatically with another compiler (like egcc).
I think we have two goals here:
-
On Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 09:36:27 -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
[standard build environment]
I think that's a bogus argument; a broken gcc in /usr/local/bin would
cause the same problem.
A broken gcc in /usr/local/bin caused the libc6 problem.
A standard build environment would therefore not have
On Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 16:25:09 +0100, Anders Hammarquist wrote:
I think we have two goals here:
- Make the developers use gcc for building C code in packages. [*]
This is IMHO not a good idea. On the alpha architecture, gcc (at least
2.7.2.x) is broken, and all Debian packages in the
On Fri, Oct 30, 1998 at 01:58:12AM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[PROPOSED] bashism in Packaging Manual
Seconded.
Ray
--
UNFAIR Term applied to advantages enjoyed by other people which we tried
to cheat them out of and didn't manage. See also DISHONESTY, SNEAKY,
UNDERHAND
On Fri, Oct 30, 1998 at 02:05:14AM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[PROPOSED] time stamps should be preserved
According to a recent discussion on debian-policy on this subject we
consider this topic as `nice-to-have', but without priority.
Maintainers are
On Fri, Oct 30, 1998 at 02:08:11AM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[PROPOSED] Fixing of typo in packaging manual
At the bottom, it says ina instead of in a.
Seconded.
Ray
--
UNFAIR Term applied to advantages enjoyed by other people which we tried
to cheat them out of
21 matches
Mail list logo
