Upgrade of policy, and failed proposals
Hi folks,
I was all set to go in and update policy for woody, but I then
realized that there are only two amendments that can be acted on:
#40934: [ACCEPTED 10/26/99] changelog.html.gz sanitization
#43787: [AMENDED 07/09/1999] policy on -g, a proposal
The following discussions have not made it to a formal
amendment pahse in over 6 months, and shall be marked rejected. I
think that some of these have merit; and if some of you think so,
please move to having the discussion revived.
#13353: Keywords field for packages Reported by: Brian White
<bcwhite@verisim.com>; 893 days old.
#32263: [PROPOSED] Split /cgi-bin/ into system and local parts
Reported by: Brian White <bcwhite@pobox.com>; 410 days old.
#37999: [PROPOSED]: A pre-install required space checking
mechanism for Debian packages Reported by: Manoj Srivastava
<srivasta@debian.org>; 292 days old.
#38703: [PROPOSED] A better way to configure debian systems
Reported by: Goswin Brederlow
<goswin.brederlow@student.uni-tuebingen.de>; 279 days old.
#39398: [PROPOSED] debian-policy has an unclear statement on
dependancies and priorities Reported by: Chris Fearnley
<Chris@CJFearnley.com>; 268 days old.
#41113: [PROPOSED] Naming Conventions for modules
Reported by: Alexander Reelsen <ar@rhwd.net>; 239 days old.
#42554: A proposal for README.Debian Reported by: Stephane Bortzmeyer
<bortzmeyer@debian.org>; 213 days old.
#42870: every alternative should be usable Reported by: Andrew Pimlott
<andrew@pimlott.ne.mediaone.net>; 208 days old.
#43077: [Proposal]: Remove the incompatibility argument from 5.1
Reported by: Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>; 203 days old.
manoj
--
Today is the first day of the rest of the mess.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: