Bug#3199: Another bizarre message from debian-devel-request
Here's another. What on earth is it on about ??
------- start of forwarded message (RFC 934 encapsulation) -------
Return-Path: <debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org>
Received: from vega.netg.se ([194.52.205.3]) by chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk
with smtp (ident root using rfc1413) id m0uQarJ-0002Xqn
(Debian /\oo/\ Smail3.1.29.1 #29.35); Mon, 3 Jun 96 15:43 BST
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by vega.netg.se id QAA11278
(8.7.5/IDA-1.6 for ian@chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk); Mon, 3 Jun 1996 16:18:48 +0200
Message-ID: <199606031418.QAA11278@vega.netg.se>
X-Authentication-Warning: vega.netg.se: smartlst set sender to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org using -f
References: <m0uPi94-0005z7C@mongo.pixar.com> <m0uQa8Y-0002aFC@chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <m0uQa8Y-0002aFC@chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk>
X-Loop: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Precedence: junk
From: debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
To: ian@chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Bug#3013: elvis is too granular and has short description
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 16:18:48 +0200
WARNING:
Please try to use 'debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org'
the next time when issuing (un)subscribe requests.
You have not been removed, I couldn't find your name on the list.
If this wasn't your intention or you are having problems getting yourself
unsubscribed, reply to this mail now (quoting it entirely (for diagnostic
purposes), and of course adding any comments you see fit).
Transcript of unsubscription request follows:
- --
>From iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk Mon Jun 3 16:18:37 1996
>Return-Path: <iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk>
>Received: from ursa.cus.cam.ac.uk (root@ursa.cus.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.6]) by vega.netg.se with SMTP id QAA11262
> (8.7.5/IDA-1.6 for <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>); Mon, 3 Jun 1996 16:18:34 +0200
>Received: by ursa.cus.cam.ac.uk
> (Smail-3.1.29.0 #77) id m0uQaSU-00012MC; Mon, 3 Jun 96 15:18 BST
>Resent-Sender: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson)
>Subject: Bug#3013: elvis is too granular and has short description
>Reply-To: Ian Jackson <ian@chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk>, debian-bugs@pixar.com
>Resent-From: Ian Jackson <ian@chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk>
>Resent-To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
>Resent-Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 14:18:13 GMT
>Resent-Message-ID: <debian-bugs-handler.3013.B06031412500@pixar.com>
>X-Debian-PR-Package: elvisnox
>Received: via spool for debian-bugs; Mon, 03 Jun 1996 14:18:13 GMT
>Received: with rfc822 via encapsulated-mail; Mon, 03 Jun 1996 14:12:48 GMT
>Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp
> (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0uQaM8-0005zFC; Mon, 3 Jun 96 07:11 PDT
>Received: from artemis.chu.cam.ac.uk by pixar.com with SMTP id AA03352
> (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for bruce@mongo.pixar.com); Mon, 3 Jun 1996 07:11:36 -0700
>Received: from chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk by artemis.chu.cam.ac.uk with smtp
> (Smail3.1.29.1 #33) id m0uQa8z-0007uVC; Mon, 3 Jun 96 14:58 BST
>Received: by chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk
> id m0uQa8Y-0002aFC
> (Debian /\oo/\ Smail3.1.29.1 #29.35); Mon, 3 Jun 96 14:57 BST
>Message-Id: <m0uQa8Y-0002aFC@chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk>
>Date: Mon, 3 Jun 96 14:57 BST
>From: Ian Jackson <ian@chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk>
>To: bruce@pixar.com (Bruce Perens)
>References: <m0uPi94-0005z7C@mongo.pixar.com>
>
>Bruce Perens writes ("Re: Bug#3013: elvis is too granular and has short description"):
>...
>> I can confirm this. We broke the xlib package out of the rest of X
>> so that we could install X-optional programs on non-X systems without
>> the need for no-X versions of the packages.
>...
>> It was the consensus of the group some time ago when we made this change.
>> It belongs in the develper guidelines.
>
>It does indeed. It will be in the new manual set I'm writing, in the
>Debian policy manual.
>
>...
>> Aw com'on. It's the only X and no-X package pair left in the entirety of
>> Debian. All of the rest are gone as far as I can tell.
>
>Indeed. I'd very much like to see the elvis packages fall into line here.
>
>...
>> Lighten up. We're not going to reject the packages, but we might attempt
>> to convince you that one of them is redundant.
>
>Quite :-).
>
>Ian.
>
------- end -------
Reply to: