Re: Package documentation

To: Debian Policy List <debian-policy@lists.debian.org>
Subject: Re: Package documentation
From: Wichert Akkerman <wichert@cistron.nl>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 15:26:58 +0100
Message-id: <[🔎] 20010302152658.B26893@cistron.nl>
Mail-followup-to: Debian Policy List <debian-policy@lists.debian.org>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 200103021424.f22EOUG14343@linda.lfix.co.uk>; from olly@lfix.co.uk on Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 02:24:30PM +0000
References: <wichert@cistron.nl> <[🔎] 200103021424.f22EOUG14343@linda.lfix.co.uk>

Previously Oliver Elphick wrote:
> I have in the past seen people argue that the upstream stuff should
> be left alone.  

Many things are argued, but not all are correct. If you follow that
reasoning we would all be DJB-clones..

Wichert.

-- 
   ________________________________________________________________
 / Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience  \
| wichert@cistron.nl                  http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ |
| 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0  2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |

Reply to:

References:
- Re: Package documentation
  - From: "Oliver Elphick" <olly@lfix.co.uk>

Prev by Date: Re: Package documentation
Next by Date: Bug#88249: PROPOSAL] policy process must explicitly include relevant package maintainers
Previous by thread: Re: Package documentation
Next by thread: Re: Package documentation
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread