Hi,
>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Santiago> But the reason policy says some files should not be
Santiago> conffiles is the following: "Doing this will lead to dpkg
Santiago> giving the user confusing and possibly dangerous options
Santiago> for conffile update when
(thanks for answering :-)
On 4 Sep 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Santiago> Ok, I will answer myself :-) I have found a paragraph in
> Santiago> the packaging manual providing the rationale for not making
> Santiago> conffiles certain files. However, the given rationale is
> Santiago> not en
Hi,
>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Santiago> Ok, I will answer myself :-) I have found a paragraph in
Santiago> the packaging manual providing the rationale for not making
Santiago> conffiles certain files. However, the given rationale is
Santiago> not enough when th
Hi,
>>"Philip" == Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Philip> I meant in the sense that it might be a good idea to have one
Philip> person that can tell one of the Policy Editors that they
Philip> should actually go ahead and edit the policy, once the agreed
Philip> policy decision proces
Hi,
>>"Adam" == Adam P Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Adam> Actually I see the developers reference as just another documentation
Adam> file. I've never seen to it referred to as core policy before.
Adam> Well, assuming it is decided to be a "core policy document", I'm happy
to
Adam>
Hi,
Well, let me try again. I guess we are agreed upon
debian-policy and packaging-manual as core policy documents. The
developers-reference package is up in the air.
I see ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian/doc/package-developer also
has: 7 programmer.html.tar.gz 55 progr
[You (Manoj Srivastava)]
> I hope I am not
> incorrect in assuming that the debian-policy, packaging-manual, and
> the developers-reference packages constitute the core of the policy
> documents.
Actually I see the developers reference as just another documentation
file. I've never seen to it
Ok, I will answer myself :-)
I have found a paragraph in the packaging manual providing the rationale
for not making conffiles certain files. However, the given rationale is
not enough when the conffile is always the same, so I have just submitted
a bug against debian-policy asking for more ration
> As soon as I have confirmation that the maintainers have
> indeed agreed to hand over control, I shall upload a new revision of
> the policy documents, with no changes except to the maintianer
> field.
I'll do it for you on debian-policy.deb if you like.
We're setting the maintainer t
> Philip> I think I'm the Policy Czar, if we have one.
>
> You. Have. Got. To. Be. Kidding. You mean you missed the two
> weeks of discussion, followed by the 10 day voting period, the vote
> results, the discussion of the vote results, my reply to Jim about
> the current state of affars
Hi,
As you know, a mechanism to update policy mechanisms has been
proposed and accepted (after an unanimous vote on the -policy
group). The policy packages shall be put into CVS on cvs.debian.org
and maintained by a set of volunteers.
The repository is in place; and we are read
Hi,
>>"Philip" == Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Philip> Jim Pick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Philip> I think I'm the Policy Czar, if we have one.
You. Have. Got. To. Be. Kidding. You mean you missed the two
weeks of discussion, followed by the 10 day voting period, the vote
Jim Pick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not clear on what our current setup is for that. Do we have a policy
> czar? Maybe it goes up to Ian Jackson?
I think I'm the Policy Czar, if we have one.
> Maybe he'd like to put it to a
> developer vote. I'm not sure. Does anybody h
13 matches
Mail list logo
