Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> I'll reply with an interdiff relative to the last version of the
> patch.
Here it is.
Subject: Clarifications to symbols and shlibs policy
subject/verb agreement: s/provide/provides/
Packages with libraries or binaries linking to a shared library must
use symbols or shl
Hi,
Russ Allbery wrote:
> I propose the attached patch to address all of those issues. Seconds or
> further discussion?
[...]
> policy.sgml | 24 ++--
> 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
What happened to this proposal? Does it need attention from any
par
Hi,
Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Charles Plessy , 2011-12-30, 15:39:
>>+ A Build-Using field must list the corresponding source
>>+ package for any such binary package incorporated during the build
>
> s/Build-/Built-/
>
>>+ The archive software might reject packages that refer to
>>
Hi terminal emulator authors (in bcc),
There is a policy proposal to clarify what
x-terminal-emulator -e
does when there is one argument and when there are many arguments.
Currently policy says:
| To be an `x-terminal-emulator', a program must:
|* Be able to emulate a DEC VT100 te
Charles Plessy wrote:
> Would the following patch be acceptable now ?
My feedback got no replies, so I can only assume that everyone was so
awestruck by the suggestions that they were lost for words.
Here's an updated patch. Improvements welcome.
Looking forward to your thoughts,
Jonathan
From
Hi Robert,
In 2007, Robert Millan wrote:
> In the definition of priorities, "required" and "important" seem to collide
> with each other. In particular, the part of "required" that reads:
>
> "Packages which are necessary for the proper functioning of the system"
>
> with the part of "importan
Hi,
Policy says:
> Run-time support programs that use the shared library but are not
> required for the library to function or files used by the shared
> library that can be used by any version of the shared library
> package should instead be put in a separate package. This package
> might typic
Hi,
In July, 2008, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> As demonstrated by the following trivia[1], and also mentioned by SUSv3, the
> echo built-in varies from implementation to implementation and thus should be
> discouraged.
[...]
> + o='Foo:\n\tI do not like bar!!\n\nBar:\n\tI do not like you either'
Hi Russ,
Russ Allbery wrote[1]:
> Every time I've tried to streamline the process, someone equally upset
> rips me a new one for changing the Policy rules without consulting the
> project sufficiently.
The last time I raised the topic[2], I was told that what is stalling
most policy bugs is a la
9 matches
Mail list logo
