Package: debian-policy
Severity: normal
Hi
I think policy should include some words on the usage of Mailinglists as
a Maintainer: address. The current 3.3 The maintainer of a package
reads
------
Every package must have a Debian maintainer (the maintainer may be one
person or a group of
Russ Allbery wrote:
Licenses are included in common-licenses primarily on the basis of how
commonly they're used in the archive. Currently, there are only about
five packages in the archive covered by this license, so I don't believe
this is warranted at this time. Basically, the license
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
I propose to add, someone please fix up en_GANNEFF:
---+++---
If the Maintainer address points to a mailing list then that list must
be configured to accept mail from those role accounts in Debian used to
send automated mails regarding the package.
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 12:36:07PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Jörg Sommer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The rest looks good and I agree that such a source is useful, but it
should also be allowed to refer to a central document like
/u/s/d/dpatch/README.source. I expect that many README.source
On 11259 March 1977, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
---+++---
If the Maintainer address points to a mailing list then that list must
be configured to accept mail from those role accounts in Debian used to
send automated mails regarding the package. This
mindjet mindmanager 7 for mac - 39
adobe dreamweaver cs3 - 59
steinberg cubase sx 2.2.0.33 - 39
luxology modo 301 for mac - 129
corel wordperfect office standard edition 12 - 49
type igoemb. com in Internet Exp|orer
ibm lotus smartsuite millenium edition release 9.8 - 39
cadlink signlab vinyl
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Severity: normal
Hi
I think policy should include some words on the usage of Mailinglists as
a Maintainer: address. The current 3.3 The maintainer of a package
reads
Additionally I would like:
+++---+++
If the Maintainer: field points to
Russ Allbery dijo [Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 10:16:13AM -0800]:
I'd like to request the addition of the file:
http://www.perlfoundation.org/attachment/legal/artistic-2_0.txt
as Artistic-2 in /usr/share/common-licenses/.
Licenses are included in common-licenses primarily on the basis of
Allison Randal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery wrote:
Licenses are included in common-licenses primarily on the basis of how
commonly they're used in the archive. Currently, there are only about
five packages in the archive covered by this license, so I don't
believe this is
Gunnar Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Many Perl modules are just licensed under the same terms as Perl
itself, so as soon as Perl is released under this license, we will have
several hundreds of packages automagically under it.
Of course, this will require updating/changing many of them (as
Russ Allbery wrote:
Gunnar Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Many Perl modules are just licensed under the same terms as Perl
itself, so as soon as Perl is released under this license, we will have
several hundreds of packages automagically under it.
Of course, this will require
Allison Randal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Perl 6 is already distributed under version 2.0, currently included in
the Parrot package. As are over a hundred Perl 6 modules, currently
included in the Pugs package. We haven't split them out into separate
Debian packages yet, but will in the next 6
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 05:38:50PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
We have:
required/essential -- stuff that can't be removed: libc, dpkg, etc
important -- the rest of base, stuff necessary to bootstrap and
recover a usable and useful system
I have to admit that I
13 matches
Mail list logo
