Installing:
debian-policy_3.5.5.0.tar.gz
to pool/main/d/debian-policy/debian-policy_3.5.5.0.tar.gz
policy-process.txt.gz byhand
libc6-migration.txt byhand
fhs.txt byhand
debian-policy_3.5.5.0_all.deb
to pool/main/d/debian-policy/debian-policy_3.5.5.0_all.deb
perl-policy.txt.gz byhand
menu-poli
Discussing the question of making device files in a postinst, and how
to go about doing so.
I'd really like it if someone could draft a proposal which says how it
ought to be done (Russell?).
Thanks,
Julian
- Forwarded message from Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Date: Mon, 4 Ju
A pretty good FAQ about UTF-8 and Unicode in general, which has lots of info
about UTF-8 and Linux:
- http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/unicode.html -- UTF-8 and Unicode FAQ
A recent slashdot.org article about Unicode (with the usual flammage, but a few
insightful posts):
- http://slashdot.org/art
On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 09:20:50PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jun 04, Radovan Garabik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> >If, for whatever reason (such as upstream author's or maintainer's
> >> >names, foreign language package description and similar), you need to
> >> >use characters ou
Seconded, with this change.
--
Raul
On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 12:54:13PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> Radovan Garabik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Given the recent discussion about UTF-8 support in debian,
> >I would like to come forth with following proposal.
> >Any comments, suggestions, and g
tag 66023 + fixed
tag 89473 + fixed
tag 89674 + fixed
tag 91249 + fixed
tag 91252 + fixed
tag 91257 + fixed
tag 91259 + fixed
tag 91260 + fixed
tag 91261 + fixed
tag 92744 + fixed
tag 94995 + fixed
tag 95906 + fixed
tag 97072 + fixed
tag 98712 + fixed
quit
This message was generated automatically
On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 10:16:30AM -0400, Richard A Nelson wrote:
> My inclination is to close this, but I'm cc:ing -policy for further
> comments.
>
> The issue is providing files for use of another package, without
> depending upon the package.
There are two issues:
(1) Log files must be rotat
On Jun 04, Radovan Garabik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >If, for whatever reason (such as upstream author's or maintainer's
>> >names, foreign language package description and similar), you need to
>> >use characters outside 7 bit ASCII range in control files, these
>> >characters must be
On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 02:12:37AM +0300, Adi Stav wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 10:20:38PM +0200, Radovan Garabik wrote:
> ...snip...
> >
> > *Addition to 13.3 Additional documentation:
> >
> > Documentation of debian packages in text format, if written in language
> > requiring characters ou
On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 12:54:13PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> Radovan Garabik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >3.3 Default charset of control files
>
> [...]
>
> >*Addition to 13.5 Preferred documentation formats:
> >
> >HTML documents, if in encoding other than us-ascii, must
> >have in their
Dear all,
Version 3.5.5.0 of policy has just been installed into unstable,
closing a significant number of bugs [0].
I do not intend uploading another new version before policy goes into
freeze, unless there are important changes or bugfixes necessary
before that time. [1]
I therefore recommend
Hi
> > On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 02:37:19PM +0200, Russell Coker wrote:
> > > Also make the package check for the presence of the character device
> > > /dev/.devfsd first, if that device exists then your script must not
> > > attempt to create the device node and it should be left for the kernel to
[Please cc me on replies, I'm not subscribed to the list.]
Apologies for sending this here but the BTS is still down.
The current policy manual says in footnotes.html#19
Usual urgency values are low, medium, high and critical. They have an
effect on how quickly a package will be considered for i
Previously Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> However according to /usr/lib/dpkg/parsechangelog/debian, the acceptable
> values for urgency are:
And that list isn't correct either iirc.
> This change seems to have happened around dpkg 1.9 but isn't in the
> changelog.
That's because that list was never th
On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 10:55:36AM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> Apologies for sending this here but the BTS is still down.
>
> The current policy manual says in footnotes.html#19
>
> Usual urgency values are low, medium, high and critical. They have an
> effect on how quickly a package will be
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> In ftp-master.debian.org:~ajt/testing/update_out.pl (which I assume is
> the script which is used; Anthony, please could you confirm?), the
> line which defines waiting days is:
>
> my %mindays = ("low" => 10, "medium" => 5, "high" => 2, "critical" => 0);
On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 12:56:48PM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> Interesting. The reason this came up is a couple of days ago I had an
> extremely important upload to make for webmin. I put critical in the
> changelog but dpkg-parsechangelog bombed out. That's when I did some
> investigation a
Previously Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Wichert, Anthony, any chance of resolving this one soon?
For what value of `soon'? Given that noone has noticed that even
though this inconsistency has been there for years means it's
not very high on my todo-list. We'll get around to it before
a 1.10 release thou
On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 12:06:45AM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > Wichert, Anthony, any chance of resolving this one soon?
>
> For what value of `soon'? Given that noone has noticed that even
> though this inconsistency has been there for years means it's
> no
Previously Julian Gilbey wrote:
> This inconsistency has only been relevant since testing came into
> being.
Which is months ago now and still nobody noticed, probably since
the priorities for testing were never documented.
Wichert.
--
_
On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 12:17:23AM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > This inconsistency has only been relevant since testing came into
> > being.
>
> Which is months ago now and still nobody noticed, probably since
> the priorities for testing were never document
On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 10:46:51PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> AFAIK, Wichert and Anthony have been privately discussing how to
> resolve it. I was not aware of the dpkg-parsechangelog issue,
> though. Wichert, Anthony, any chance of resolving this one soon?
Changed to emergency. These should
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy
Module name:debian-policy
Changes by: jdg Thu Jun 7 00:45:47 PDT 2001
Modified files:
. : policy.sgml
debian : changelog
Log message:
* Change footnote about urgency values to the now-current list: low,
mediu
submitted to BTS but since master is down, I am posting a copy to
debian-policy as well
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.5.0
Severity: wishlist
Following proposed addition to policy clarifies encoding issues and
prepares for eventual later migration to utf-8 (see Bug#99324).
Note the use of wo
On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 04:58:31PM +0200, Radovan Garabik wrote:
> + language such as ISO-8859-2 for some central- and easter
Think that should be easterN.
sam th --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
OpenPGP Key: CABD33FC --- http://samth.dyndns.org/key
De
Radovan Garabik (2001-06-07 16:58:31 +0200) :
> submitted to BTS but since master is down, I am posting a copy to
> debian-policy as well
With the exception of the already mentioned typo, I second this
proposal.
--
Roland Mas
Using a big hammer without caution can cause big damage.
-- Postgre
Your message dated Fri, 8 Jun 2001 00:30:50 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line debian-policy_3.5.5.0_i386.changes INSTALLED
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 case it is
Your message dated Fri, 8 Jun 2001 00:30:50 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line debian-policy_3.5.5.0_i386.changes INSTALLED
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 case it is
Your message dated Fri, 8 Jun 2001 00:30:50 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line debian-policy_3.5.5.0_i386.changes INSTALLED
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 case it is
Your message dated Fri, 8 Jun 2001 00:30:50 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line debian-policy_3.5.5.0_i386.changes INSTALLED
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 case it is
Your message dated Fri, 8 Jun 2001 00:30:50 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line debian-policy_3.5.5.0_i386.changes INSTALLED
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 case it is
Your message dated Fri, 8 Jun 2001 00:30:50 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line debian-policy_3.5.5.0_i386.changes INSTALLED
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 case it is
Your message dated Fri, 8 Jun 2001 00:30:50 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line debian-policy_3.5.5.0_i386.changes INSTALLED
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 case it is
Your message dated Fri, 8 Jun 2001 00:30:50 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line debian-policy_3.5.5.0_i386.changes INSTALLED
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 case it is
Your message dated Fri, 8 Jun 2001 00:30:50 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line debian-policy_3.5.5.0_i386.changes INSTALLED
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 case it is
Your message dated Fri, 8 Jun 2001 00:30:50 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line debian-policy_3.5.5.0_i386.changes INSTALLED
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 case it is
Your message dated Fri, 8 Jun 2001 00:30:50 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line debian-policy_3.5.5.0_i386.changes INSTALLED
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 case it is
Your message dated Fri, 8 Jun 2001 00:30:50 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line debian-policy_3.5.5.0_i386.changes INSTALLED
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 case it is
Your message dated Fri, 8 Jun 2001 00:30:50 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line debian-policy_3.5.5.0_i386.changes INSTALLED
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 case it is
Your message dated Fri, 8 Jun 2001 00:30:50 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line debian-policy_3.5.5.0_i386.changes INSTALLED
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 case it is
Picking this back up where I left it after a brief hiatus...
With the BTS currently down, I can't really do a lot to move this
proposal forward, but I thought I'd at least post the final version
that aj and I hammered out. This meets our goals of being simple,
direct, and addressing the actual pr
On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 08:44:21PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Radovan Garabik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit
>
> > On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 02:09:28PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 01:58:37PM +0200, Radovan Garabik wrote:
> > ...
> > >
> > > > There has to be
On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 09:02:12PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Radovan Garabik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit
> Hi,
>
> I would object severely to this proposal, because there are currently many
> documentation in Japanese, which is in EUC.
>
> Usually Japanese text is identified with
On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 08:42:28PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Radovan Garabik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit
>
> > > utf8 in the current state does not cover everything we had in other
> > > encodings.
> >
> > utf8 is just a _multibyte_ encoding, not _character_ encoding,
> > it can
Radovan Garabik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit
> > I would not go against making programs utf-8-aware,
> > but I don't think that changing all the documentation to utf-8
> > is going too far.
>
> not yet - it will be just recommendation so far
Nice to hear that.
regards,
junichi
Radovan Garabik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit
> > utf8 in the current state does not cover everything we had in other
> > encodings.
>
> utf8 is just a _multibyte_ encoding, not _character_ encoding,
> it can represent whatever character encoding is used in UCS-4
UCS4 is not a satisfac
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.5.0
Severity: wishlist
Following proposed addition to policy clarifies encoding issues and
prepares for eventual later migration to utf-8 (see Bug#99324).
Note the use of word "should" - these are not strict requirements.
--- policy.sgml-old Fri Jun 1 11:
47 matches
Mail list logo
