Hi,
What is this policy group you are talking about? AFAIK, there
is no such beast; there is just an public, open mailing list, which
is more and less than a formal Policy group.
The mailing list was formed to reduce clutter on the devel
list, which is rapidly becoming a catch-
On 21 Apr 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Philip> Does that satisfy both sides ?
>
> This satisfies me. Indeed, this has been my position all the
> while, but evidently the joys of the fray and the intellectual
> stimulation offered by the flow of reason has been a feast for my
>
I agree w/ both of these solutions. But then the question is: who sets
the default run-level. Currently it is a little hard to do this for a
complete linux newbie.
Jim wrote:
>
> In the message identified by <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Oliver Elphick"
> wrote:
> > How about this then:
> >
> >2
Hi,
>>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dale> On 20 Apr 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Well, to take a different tack, what is the point of a policy
>> document at all when anyone can say "well, my package is an
>> exception and need not comply to policy."? If one ma
Hi.
Philip> Does that satisfy both sides ?
This satisfies me. Indeed, this has been my position all the
while, but evidently the joys of the fray and the intellectual
stimulation offered by the flow of reason has been a feast for my
soul, and, added to my evident inability to coherentl
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Adam P. Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Let's mix is up a little more. What about the TEIlite DTDs?
[...]
>Personally, I think their restrictions are extremely reasonable; while
>they have also provided the ability to extend and modify their DTDs
>without actua
* MS => Manoj Srivastava
[...]
MS> I think I second your request: what are the opinions about
MS> making emacsen add-on packages depend on make? In the old days this
MS> dependency was relegated to the maintainers machine, snd thus
MS> irrelevant; but now if it is to be required on every mac
> ``We are a bunch of 300 developers who maintain 2000 packages. Since
> everyone knows best how to solve upcoming problems and since everyone
> always agrees with others--or in case of disagreement we have a
> constitution--there is no need to specify who is working on what part.
> Everyone
On 20 Apr 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Well, to take a different tack, what is the point of a policy
> document at all when anyone can say "well, my package is an
> exception and need not comply to policy."? If one may take that
> stance, I see no point in having a policy doc
On 21 Apr 1998, Guy Maor wrote:
> Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Every package in the distribution must have one or more maintainers
> > at a time (see below).
>
> That's not currently true. Orphaned packages are not typically
> removed from the unstable distribution. In
In the message identified by <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Oliver Elphick"
wrote:
> How about this then:
>
>2 = multi-user, no network, no X
>3 = multi-user and network, no X
>4 = multi-user, no network, X
>5 = everything
>
> This uses up all the _traditionally_ available slots,
Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Every package in the distribution must have one or more maintainers
> at a time (see below).
That's not currently true. Orphaned packages are not typically
removed from the unstable distribution. Instead their maintainer is
set to (orphaned) or
Shaleh wrote:
>I would like to second this. I already had to set my machine up this
>way by hand. It simply makes more sense. When I want XDM I switch
>run-levels. Simple, easy. That is the whole point of run-levels. Put
>different environments in different runlevels.
How about this
Also, the meta policy should probably set some limitations on what the
policy can and cannot cover. I believe that a policy which restricts
the manner in which a package can be maintained is not only wrong. It
is outside the scope of policy.
Guy
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I submit that the project has changed since you first penned
> policy.
Yes. We're now quite large and have maintainers with very wide levels
of abilities. Unfortunately we can't always rely on maintainer's
making reasonable decisions.
I gue
In the message identified by <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thank you. That was the point I was so poorly trying to make. No
> denigration was intended (just a bit of jealousy at not having any spare
> time myself)
I'm not a developer, but I see how the debian IRC
Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The Policy Group was begun about the same time as the QA group, and
> testing, among others. Outside of Ian's original writing of the
> Programmer's guide et al, the current policy documents were created by
> this Policy Group.
Memory is failing you here
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I agree that there there well may be exceptions to the
> individual directives in the Policy; in which case I think the
> exceptions (when known) should be noted in the policy.
Absolutely. The policy manual should use the standard RFC defini
Hi,
Well, to take a different tack, what is the point of a policy
document at all when anyone can say "well, my package is an
exception and need not comply to policy."? If one may take that
stance, I see no point in having a policy document in the first
place.
manoj
Why hav
I would like to second this. I already had to set my machine up this
way by hand. It simply makes more sense. When I want XDM I switch
run-levels. Simple, easy. That is the whole point of run-levels. Put
different environments in different runlevels.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTE
On 20 Apr 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> Dale> The desire is to create a distribution that installs in the
> Dale> smallest disk space possible. I saw that requirement as being a
> Dale> smaller one than the functionality requirem
21 matches
Mail list logo
