Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If "do not modify a configuration file of another package" is just a
> > general rule, it should be clear how many exceptions to the rule are
> > there.
>
> There are no exceptions.
I think there is at least one exception:
(from version 2.
Your message dated 28 Nov 1998 15:47:52 -0600
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#29770: Policy contradicts itself about /etc/aliases
has caused the attached bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the cas
Hi,
Since /etc/aliases is not a conf file belonging to any package
whatsoever, sectiosn 4.7 and 5.5 are not in conflict. I am closing
this report.
manoj
--
Fortune's Law of the Week (this week, from Kentucky): No female shall
appear in a bathing suit at any airport in this S
Hi,
>>"Adam" == Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Adam> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>> The idea is that while sub policy documents are being hammered
>> out, they remain in an xternal document under control of the authors
>> of the sub
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have discovered a little inconsistency in the policy.
> Section 5.5, "Mail transport agents" says:
>"/etc/aliases is the source file for the system mail aliases
> (e.g., postmaster, usenet, etc.)--it is the one whic
[Manoj, why do you never CC the bug report? Annoying.]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi
>>> "Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Santiago> Would there be any objection to including the content of
Santiago> debian-emacs-policy.gz
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [1 ] (major crosspost)
> Previously Julian Gilbey wrote:
>> See my other mail to this list -- this is what release quite
>> happily does, and its man page doesn't say anything about it being
>> evil. Where would I (as a
A while ago someone (Santiago iirc) filed a bugreport about packages
depending on other packages with a lower priority. This made me
wonder about allowed relations between packages. Reading the policy
document does not give any explicit demands. The only thing that
I am sure of is that a package m
8 matches
Mail list logo
