debian-policy Feb 2001 by subject

[First Page] <
[previous page] 		Page 1 of 1 >
[next page] 		[Last Page]

[Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index] [Other Debian Lists] [Debian Home]
[ot?] where do we go from here with nomenclature? Re: [PROPOSAL] Allowing crypto in the main archive [PROPOSAL] cron.* scripts should be quiet Bug#26402: marked as done ([PROPOSED] packaging manual needs clarification about conffiles) Bug#40180: marked as done (packaging manual typo) Bug#40706: marked as done ([REJECTED 21/7/99] /usr/share/doc vs. /usr/doc transition) Bug#40864: marked as done (debian-policy: Section 5.8 refers to /usr/doc/package) Bug#42052: Bug#45052: [OLD PROPOSAL] /var/mail and /var/spool/mail Bug#42477: marked as done ([OLD PROPOSAL] delay the /usr/doc transition till after potato) Bug#6206: marked as done (dpkg documentation needs slight modification) Bug#62070: marked as done (Package freeze makes no sense for package) Bug#65847: marked as done (packaging-manual: no mention of Build-Depends in chapter 4) Bug#72335: PROPOSED] Optional build-arch and build-indep targets for debian/rules Bug#76868: final revision of policy diff, and related scripts Bug#76868: PROPOSED] invoke-rc.d interface to invoke initscripts Bug#78012: Origin and Bugs headers proposal Bug#81852: Info received (was second) Bug#81852: Making the crypto proposal an amendment Bug#81852: second Bug#81852: seconded Bug#82310: Provides: java-servlet-engine Bug#83063: marked as done ([PROPOSED] enhanced x-terminal-emulator policy) Bug#83069: marked as done ([ACCEPTED 22/01/2001] bringing X app-defaults policy into the era of XFree86 4) Bug#83487: marked as done (please add HTML version of FHS) Bug#83669: dynamic creation of libx.so.n Bug#83669: Shared libraries Bug#83977: PROPOSED] include Perl Policy Bug#84079: marked as done (debian-policy: proposal.* documents are obsolete) Bug#84236: Date typo in upgrading-checklist.text.gz Bug#84236: marked as done (Date typo in upgrading-checklist.text.gz) Bug#84631: marked as done (typo in policy manual) Bug#84631: typo in policy manual Bug#84636: marked as done (typo in virtual package list) Bug#84636: typo in virtual package list Bug#84641: debian-policy: Obsolete virtual packages Bug#84641: marked as done (debian-policy: Obsolete virtual packages) Bug#85270: [PROPOSAL] Forbiding debian-revision field for Debian-native source packages Bug#85270: PROPOSAL] Forbiding debian-revision field for Debian-native source packages Bug#85497: marked as done (typo in policy manual) Bug#85497: typo in policy manual Bug#85500: [PROPOSED] please strengthen section 2.3.8.1's stance on messages in postinsts Bug#85500: PROPOSED] please strengthen section 2.3.8.1's stance on messages in postinsts Bug#85501: marked as done (typo in policy process chapter 3) Bug#85501: typo in policy process chapter 3 Bug#85503: section 3.1 of policy is confused Bug#85504: grammar issue in policy 3.2.1 Bug#85504: marked as done (grammar issue in policy 3.2.1) Bug#85505: marked as done (policy section 4.0, upstream-version is poorly worded) Bug#85505: policy section 4.0, upstream-version is poorly worded Bug#85506: marked as done (policy 5.2 does not say that binary-indep must be non-interactive) Bug#85506: policy 5.2 does not say that binary-indep must be non-interactive Bug#85508: marked as done (policy 5.2 has an unclear sentence) Bug#85508: policy 5.2 has an unclear sentence Bug#85510: marked as done (policy 6.1 typo) Bug#85510: policy 6.1 typo Bug#85511: marked as done (policy 6.5 grammar issue) Bug#85511: policy 6.5 grammar issue Bug#85514: marked as done (more policy 6.5 grammar / typo issues) Bug#85514: more policy 6.5 grammar / typo issues Bug#85815: packaging-manual: about dpkg:UpstreamVersion and dpkg:Version substvars Bug#85982: marked as done (policy ch7 grammar issues) Bug#85982: policy ch7 grammar issues Bug#85986: marked as done (policy ch9 grammar issues) Bug#85986: policy ch9 grammar issues Bug#85993: marked as done (policy ch10 grammar) Bug#85993: policy ch10 grammar Bug#86001: ch13 typo Bug#86001: marked as done (ch13 typo) Bug#86436: Build-Depends: should vs may Bug#86507: recommends removed package Bug#87007: policy : ch 9 sect 2.2 Bug#87159: explanation of Build-Depends et. al. is unclear Bug#87233: wording in section 9.2.2 could be better Bug#87510: [PROPOSAL] Make build dependencies a MUST Bug#87510: PROPOSAL] Make build dependencies a MUST Bug#87711: [PROPOSAL] Clarification of example configuration files Bug#87711: Message Undeliverable! Bug#87711: PROPOSAL] Clarification of example configuration files Bug#87828: [PROPOSAL] Deprecate confusing Build-Depends arch syntax Bug#87828: PROPOSAL] Deprecate confusing Build-Depends arch syntax Bug#87994: [PROPOSAL] better initscript definition, and adding 'restart-if-running' Bug#88029: allow rules file to be non-makefile Bug#88045: marked as done (Policy is contradictory (I think)) Bug#88045: Policy is contradictory (I think) Bug#88058: [PROPOSAL] ftp-client virtual package Bug#88058: PROPOSAL] ftp-client virtual package call for lintian help CVS jdg: * Add "links" to Build-Depends list CVS jdg: * Add XFree86 app-defaults ammendment closes: Bug#83069 CVS jdg: * Correct date in virtual packages list CVS jdg: * Corrected typos and grammatical errors found by Sean Perry CVS jdg: * Removed defunct virtual package names (closes: #84641) CVS jdg: * Removed Richard Braakman from list of maintainers at his request CVS jdg: * Undo Build-Depends change; Manoj had already done it and I hadn't noticed! CVS jdg: Clarified upgrading-checklist note about source dependencies CVS jdg: Correct "=3D" -> "=" CVS jdg: Correct <emph> -> <em> in policy.sgml app-defaults patch CVS jdg: Fix packaging-manual recommendation CVS jdg: Policy should now conflict with and replace packaging-manual CVS jdg: Removing proposal.sgml debian-policy_3.5.1.0_i386.changes INSTALLED debian-policy_3.5.2.0_i386.changes INSTALLED Directing Debian users to use project BTSes - should we? FHS, netscape and Dan Bernstein Frozen distribution? help on a request that lintian know about libtool's .la files Incorporating packaging manual in policy Re: Is the stable/unstable split broken? Linux Professional Institute Native packages, broken uploads, and debian policy native pkg versioning (was Re: Question about native packages) only release packages that have maintainers? packages with really old standards version Please add auto-forwarding feature to BTS (was: Directing Debian users to use project BTSes - should we? Policy rewrite: chaps 3-6 Policy rewrite: chs 1 & 2 Processed: amendment has 2 m's not 3 ;p Processed: change submitter Processed: Making the crypto proposal an amendment Processed: merge bugs Processed: proposal has three seconds, changing bug title and severity Processed: Re: Bug#83069: PROPOSED] bringing X app-defaults policy into the era of XFree86 4 Processed: Re: Bug#84236: Date typo in upgrading-checklist.text.gz Processed: Reassign back to base-passwd Processed: reassign to policy Processed: Retitle proposal proper location for cross-compilers in Debian? Question about native packages Re: removal of subdirs under /usr/local request for guidance seeking resolution to issues I have raised should vs must Size limit for compressing files suggestion suid binaries should not be writable by owner Re: when to call ldconfig when were Build-Depends placed in policy? The last update was on 06:14 GMT Sun May 12. There are 470 messages. Page 1 of 1.
<<
[previous month] 		|<
[first page] 		<
[previous page] 		Page 1 of 1
 >
[next page] 		>|
[last page] 		>>
[next month]

[Thread Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Other Debian Lists] [Debian Home]
Mail converted by MHonArc