debian-policy Mar 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]
[btb@debian.org: Re: lintian and plugins, again] [control] continuation lines on relation fields ? arch: lines, for not-just-linux debian. (was Re: Hurd and architecture) architecture-specific man pages (was Re: Policy does not speak of translated man pages) Bug#53582: let's get rid of this one at last Bug#53849: Processed: your mail Bug#53849: sorry for closing Bug#72335: ACCEPTED 31/10/2000] Optional build-arch and build-indep targets for debian/rules Bug#72335: PROPOSAL] Optional build-arch and build-indep targets for debian/rules Bug#78014: . Bug#83072: marked as done ([PROPOSED] tightening up the ban on /usr/X11R6 in packages) Re: Bug#83924: upgrading-checklist.text should mention DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS specifically Bug#83977: Don't modules need a versioned perl/perl-base dependency? Bug#86507: Progress? Bug#87510: PROPOSAL] Make build dependencies a MUST Bug#87711: PROPOSAL] Clarification of example configuration files Bug#87828: PROPOSAL] Deprecate confusing Build-Depends arch syntax Re: Bug#88029: allow rules file to be non-makefile Bug#88058: PROPOSAL] ftp-client virtual package Bug#88111: policy should not dictate implementation details Bug#88249: [PROPOSAL] policy process must explicitly include relevant package maintainers Bug#88249: PROPOSAL] policy process must explicitly include relevant package maintainers Bug#88651: debian-policy: Section 3.2 refers to packaging manual Bug#88788: debian-policy: Typo in copyright notice Bug#89039: menu-policy is all but useless Bug#89360: Science section not listed in http://packages.debian.org/unstable/ Bug#89473: [PROPOSAL] dpkg-statoverride and Conflicts: suidmanager (<< 0.50) Bug#89473: PROPOSAL] dpkg-statoverride and Conflicts: suidmanager (<< 0.50) Re: Bug#89637: exim_tidydb crashes Bug#89674: [PROPOSAL] Clarify ldconfig usage Bug#89674: PROPOSAL] Clarify ldconfig usage Bug#89807: marked as done (packaging-manual still refers to /usr/doc) Bug#89807: packaging-manual still refers to /usr/doc Bug#89867: [PROPOSED] Where to place web-accessible images Bug#90287: [PROPOSAL] require the use of $MAIL Bug#90287: PROPOSAL] require the use of $MAIL Bug#90287: Retraction -- my understanding of $MAIL was seriously flawed Bug#90511: [proposal] disallow multi-distribution uploads Bug#90511: An alternative solution to old libraries problem Bug#90511: marked as done ([proposal] disallow multi-distribution uploads) Bug#90511: new-proposal] (was disallow multi-distribution uploads) Bug#90511: proposal] addressing objections (re: disallow multi-distribution uploads) Bug#90511: proposal] addressing objections (re: disallow multi-distribution uploads) Bug#90511: proposal] addressing objections (re: disallow multi-distribution uploads) Bug#90511: proposal] disallow multi-distribution uploads Bug#90989: [proposal] making all control fields multi-line Bug#90989: proposal] making all control fields multi-line Bug#91249: [PROPOSED] bring X support policy into line with must/should/may usage Bug#91249: PROPOSED] bring X support policy into line with must/should/may usage Bug#91249: PROPOSED] bring X support policy into line with must/should/may usage Bug#91252: [PROPOSED] enhanced x-terminal-emulator policy, second try Bug#91252: PROPOSED] enhanced x-terminal-emulator policy, second try Bug#91257: [PROPOSED] changes to X font policy Bug#91257: PROPOSED] changes to X font policy Bug#91257: seconded, in one condition Bug#91259: [PROPOSED] minor changes to app-defaults policy Bug#91259: PROPOSED] minor changes to app-defaults policy Bug#91259: seconded Bug#91260: [PROPOSED] reclarifying the policy about X and the FHS Bug#91260: Clarification: reclarifying the policy about X and the FHS Bug#91260: PROPOSED] reclarifying the policy about X and the FHS Bug#91260: seconded Bug#91261: [PROPOSED] modernized rewording of X/Motif policy Bug#91261: PROPOSED] modernized rewording of X/Motif policy Bug#91261: seconded Bug#91276: [PROPOSED 2001/03/25] update policy to match new serious severity Bug#91276: make amendment Bug#91276: PROPOSED 2001/03/25] update policy to match new serious severity Bug#92071: packaging manual need documentation about multi-binary packages. Crypto (Was: Re: PostgreSQL 7.1beta5 debs available) CVS jdg: * No longer install fsstnd forgot to upgrade severities How to do -dbg packages right? the math section should really be science Package documentation packages affected list for must changes to policy (was: Re: Bug#91257: [PROPOSED] changes to X font policy) parallel build options in source packages Policy decision about override file in debauch Policy does not speak of translated man pages Policy rewrite: chaps 7-10 Re: PostgreSQL 7.1beta5 debs available Processed: 91261 becoming an amendment Processed: email address going away Processed: Forgot to cc control Processed: forgot to upgrade severities Processed: make amendment Processed: Mark amendment Processed: Proposal accepted Processed: Re: Processed: Re: Bug#88111: policy should not dictate implementation details Processed: Re: Processed: Re: Bug#89038: the informatoion in the manpage should be in policy Processed: reassign Processed: reassign for discussion and closure Processed: Retraction -- my understanding of $MAIL was seriously flawed Processed: these proposals becoming amendments Processed: whoops Processed: your mail Re: seeking resolution to issues I have raised Re: should vs must Slightly OT, graphing package dependencies these proposals becoming amendments Re: TrueType and non-free X fonts? what are shared libs and what are not ... where are valid sections defined? Where to place images? The last update was on 15:03 GMT Sat May 11. There are 393 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