Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Santiago> The changelog says:
> Santiago> If only the patch-level digit is incremented, no changes in
> Santiago> policy have been made, except bug fixes and
> Santiago> clarifications. Packages only have to specify the first
> Santiago> three digits
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is the first I have heard of our Policy documents being
> goals, and I disagree.
Policy, by its very nature, lies somewhere between goals and procedures.
While the DFSG and Social contract are very good, they don't say a lot
about the tech
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> The point is: we've got a wide variety of goals; debian-policy
Raul> is a fleshed-out statement of those goals.
I think you are taking policy where it should not go. The
Social contract, the DFSG, and the ilk are a statement o
On Wed, Apr 29, 1998 at 02:01:04PM +0200, Yann Dirson wrote:
>
> I think we should instead make it policy to include all section 1
> manpages, including translated ones, into the relevant binary
> packages. I can see that as a meaningful goal for slink.
I second this.
fab
--
| [EMAIL PROTECTED
"Hamish" == Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, May 02, 1998 at 04:15:54AM -0400, Adam P. Harris wrote:
> But hang on; Branden's whole point was that runlevels could solve
> the xdm & xfs mess in the /etc/X11/config file; your runlevel
> proposal doesn't address that at all. Is "i
Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your objection is to the use of the admittedly subjective criteria
> "if they feel it is a technically superior approach." Would the
> (slightly) more objective criteria "if they feel that strict adherence
> to the policy would jeopardize system integrity or
On Sat, May 02, 1998 at 04:15:54AM -0400, Adam P. Harris wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > As it stands (as I understand it), runlevels 2 through 5 are presently
> > identical in Debian. There is an ugly kludge in Debian XFree86 right now,
> > involving "start-xdm" and "sta
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In bashing my head against X for a while I've come to the realization that
> perhaps it's time we come up with some official policy regarding runlevels.
Yes... Solaris has it, so should we. ;)
> As it stands (as I understand it), runlevels 2 through
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> It's that things which people haven't invented yet concept which
Raul> has had me objecting to this concept of "policy must be
Raul> followed". If you look at policy as a set of *goals* rather
Raul> than a set of *rules* I think you'll
The text under discussion, as written by Philip Hands and Buddha Buck,
and posted in total by Manoj Srivastava is:
___
Policy should be followed, except where a discussion about the
clause in
question is still ongoing, in
10 matches
Mail list logo
