Re: Exceptions to policy

1998-04-22 Thread Charles Briscoe-Smith
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write: > >[1] No, there won't be a meta-meta-policy, etc.. If you find an error >or desire an exception in the meta-policy, we shoot you. :) Will you shoot me if I ask for an exception to the meta-meta-policy you just defined (namely "If you find an error or des

Re: first proposal for a new maintainer policy

1998-04-22 Thread Jim
Just a thought... All of you discussing this, should do several things: First, it seems there is not consensus on the desired/actual strength of authority of policy. THEREFORE: If this was not done before, ALL developers should ratify policy. If it was, skip to the next step :) Next, before just

Re: first proposal for a new maintainer policy

1998-04-22 Thread Jim
Apologies are due for my not trimming the crossposting before; I meant to, but I forgot to. As I understand things, there should be no crossposting amongst the debian mailing lists. If I make further comment, therefore, I will be careful to trim the mail distribution to one of them only, and send

Re: PROPOSAL: defining a new runlevel, 4

1998-04-22 Thread Anand Kumria
On Tue, 21 Apr 1998, Oliver Elphick wrote: > 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