Re: Getting rid of section "base" ?

1999-12-02 Thread Goswin Brederlow
Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Goswin Brederlow writes: > > Of cause main guis should be mentioned, but something like gnome woult > > be x11/gnome and the first two level would be exactly spezified and > > relevant. But the third level specifying what subtype of a gui is used > >

Re: Getting rid of section "base" ?

1999-12-02 Thread Daniel Burrows
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 09:28:47PM +0100, Yann Dirson was heard to say: > > Hmm. That sounds somewhat reasonable, except that I don't see how it > maps > > to a usable hierarchy -- it seems like you'd get an incredible mess if you > > tried to represent it. Could you maybe be a little more

Re: Submitting bugs ? (Was: Getting rid of section "base" ?)

1999-12-02 Thread Yann Dirson
Darren O. Benham writes: > Is this, basicly, a part of policy now? As stated earlier... > > > On Thu, Nov 25, 1999 at 11:01:07PM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote: > > > > I cannot find a reason currently for its existance, nor can I find a > > > > reference to it in the Policy and Packaging manua

Re: Getting rid of section "base" ?

1999-12-02 Thread Yann Dirson
Daniel Burrows writes: > > > -> File Formats, a listing of all file formats the program can > > > manipulate, > > > possibly restricted to some common ones and catch-alls, > > > > This could be investigated using the "language/translator" model I > > succintly depicted in Message-ID:

Re: Getting rid of section "base" ?

1999-12-02 Thread Sarel J. Botha
On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 09:58:35PM -0500, Daniel Burrows wrote: > > About "daemon" interface, I'd rather classify a daemon as "Nature: > > server; ClientInterface: whatever-if-useful". I see 2 orthogonal > > issues here. > > Hmm. Most daemons don't come packaged with a client, and clients can

Re: Submitting bugs ? (Was: Getting rid of section "base" ?)

1999-12-02 Thread Darren O. Benham
Is this, basicly, a part of policy now? On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 12:03:44AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote: > Richard Braakman writes: > > On Thu, Nov 25, 1999 at 11:01:07PM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote: > > > I cannot find a reason currently for its existance, nor can I find a > > > reference to it in

Re: Getting rid of section "base" ?

1999-12-02 Thread Daniel Burrows
On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 11:37:50PM +0100, Yann Dirson was heard to say: > > Daniel Burrows write: > > No, there definitely need to be a *lot* more categories based on what a > > program is or does > > I agree, but the official frontend is still dselect AFAIK, and it is > not able as-is to handle

Re: Submitting bugs ? (Was: Getting rid of section "base" ?)

1999-12-02 Thread Thomas Schoepf
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 12:03:44AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote: > Also maybe a lintian test can be written to print an error on > "Section: base". Any volunteer for this one ? I'd say taking 'base' out of 'known_sections' should be sufficient. BTW: why is the lintian 'unkown-section' tag only Type: