On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 07:29:20PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote: > Amend non-free definition (#46522) > * Stalled. > * Proposed by Raul Miller; seconded by Marco d'Itri, Joseph Carter > and Joel Klecker. > * Change definition of non-free to "contains packages which are not > compliant with the DFSG". Currently, non-free includes packages > with patent problems or other legal issues. I don't recall any pressing issues with this, and I do recall a few people who thought the idea was a good one not represented here as seconding it. Anybody have issues with this or can we call it accepted? > Changing policy on compiling with -g .. a better way (#43787) > * Stalled. > * Proposed by Ben Collins; seconded by Sean 'Shaleh' Perry, > Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Mike Goldman, Zephaniah E. Hull, Roman > Hodek, Marcus Brinkmann and Aaron Van Couwenberg. > * Instead of always requiring packages build with -g (only to strip > it later), the proposal is that they may optionally only build > with -g if the user specifies they do so (by setting > DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=debug). This should reduce overhead in normal > build circumstances. I second this proposal. I'm using it for epic4 now, works great and makes my life thousands of times easier. It also provides a very quick, easy, and otherwise nifty way for me to get people a debug version of the package if they need it while maintaining a "normal" version which is policy compliant (properly stripped).. > Change package relations policy to remove references to non-free from > main (#51473) > * Under discussion. > * Proposed by Oliver Elphick. > * Rewrite to the definition of what goes in non-free, so patents do > not keep software in non-free. > ( Proposal #46522 tries to do a similar thing. ) Oliver, what is your opinion of #46522? > Echo -n (#48247) > * Under discussion. > * Proposed by Raul Miller; seconded by Joseph Carter. > * Amend policy to say /bin/sh must be a POSIX shell, but with the > addition that "echo -n" must not generate a newline. This needs more seconds. We already do require -n, we just don't say we do. Since this proposal documents existing behavior, it probably should get into policy. Does nobody else agree with me? > Section 3.2 should not allow static user ids (except root=0) (#43483) > * Stalled. > * Proposed by Andreas Jellinghaus; seconded by Joseph Carter. > * Policy currently allows for static uid' to be hardcoded into > daemons. The proposal is to change that so only dynamic uid's may > be used. Another call for support.. LSB is likely to mandate this anyway for portability reasons. Making programs that depend on static UIDs at compile time use whatever UID the system has at runtime isn't usually hard. It can even be done with qmail (though DJB might sputter about it a lot..) > Debian-policy has an unclear statement on dependancies and priorities > (#39398) > * Old. > * Proposed by Chris Fearnley; seconded by Joey Hess. > * A clarification to wording about package priorities. No real > meaning seems to be changed by this proposal. I'd been meaning to have a look at this one again. Had a look, looks like a good idea. Seconded. > Editor and sensible-editor > * Old. > * Proposed on 2 Jun 1999 by Goswin Brederlow. > * Instead of having programs use $EDITOR and fall back to editor, > just use sensible-editor. Since sensible-editor just uses $EDITOR if present, seconded. -- - Joseph Carter GnuPG public key: 1024D/DCF9DAB3, 2048g/3F9C2A43 - firstname.lastname@example.org 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Knghtktty is not going to ask how zucchini got into the discussion ...
Description: PGP signature