Bug#96629: marked as done ([PROPOSAL] synchronize sections 3.2 and 2.3 on package naming)
Your message dated 09 Aug 2003 16:42:45 +0200
with message-id <1060440165.1488.79.camel@thanatos>
and subject line [Fwd: Re: Bug#96629]
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 7 May 2001 07:22:35 +0000
>From egonw@catv6142.extern.kun.nl Mon May 07 02:22:35 2001
Return-path: <egonw@catv6142.extern.kun.nl>
Received: from catv6142.extern.kun.nl [131.174.116.142] (mail)
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 14wfLm-0006Na-00; Mon, 07 May 2001 02:22:35 -0500
Received: from egonw by catv6142.extern.kun.nl with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian))
id 14wfNL-0000Hk-00; Mon, 07 May 2001 09:24:11 +0200
From: Egon Willighagen <egonw@sci.kun.nl>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: 3.2 and 2.3 package naming not synchronized
X-Reportbug-Version: 1.15
X-Mailer: reportbug 1.15
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 09:24:11 +0200
Message-Id: <E14wfNL-0000Hk-00@catv6142.extern.kun.nl>
Sender: Egon Willighagen <egonw@catv6142.extern.kun.nl>
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.2.0
Severity: normal
Currently, sections 3.2.1 and 2.3.1 both give rules for package naming.
The latter is, however, more strict, and both use different terminology.
I suggest these two get synchronized and both be evenly strict.
I checked the version on the website and on CVS (not on my machine).
-- System Information
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux catv6142 2.2.18 #1 Fri Dec 15 12:11:13 CET 2000 i686
Versions of packages debian-policy depends on:
ii fileutils 4.0.43-1 GNU file management utilities.
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 96629-done) by bugs.debian.org; 9 Aug 2003 14:42:55 +0000
>From jdthood@yahoo.co.uk Sat Aug 09 09:42:47 2003
Return-path: <jdthood@yahoo.co.uk>
Received: from mars.mj.nl [81.91.1.49]
by master.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 19lUvf-0007Xx-00; Sat, 09 Aug 2003 09:42:47 -0500
Received: (qmail 21539 invoked from network); 9 Aug 2003 14:42:46 -0000
Received: from 81-91-5-95-customer.mjdsl.nl (HELO thanatos.localdomain) (81.91.5.95)
by www.mj.nl with SMTP; 9 Aug 2003 14:42:46 -0000
Received: from thanatos (thanatos [127.0.0.1])
by thanatos.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTP id B505210D6E9
for <96629-done@bugs.debian.org>; Sat, 9 Aug 2003 16:42:45 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Bug#96629]
From: Thomas Hood <jdthood@yahoo.co.uk>
To: 96629-done@bugs.debian.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <1060440165.1488.79.camel@thanatos>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.3
Date: 09 Aug 2003 16:42:45 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Delivered-To: 96629-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.5 required=4.0
tests=BAYES_10,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,USER_AGENT_XIMIAN
version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_07_20
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_07_20 (1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
-----Forwarded Message-----
From: E.L. Willighagen (Egon) <egonw@sci.kun.nl>
To: Thomas Hood <jdthood@yahoo.co.uk>, 96629-quiet@bugs.debian.org, 96629-submitter@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#96629: What is this about?
Date: 09 Aug 2003 11:53:01 +0200
On Saturday 09 August 2003 08:24, Thomas Hood wrote:
> Egon Willighagen <egonw@sci.kun.nl> wrote:
> > Currently, sections 3.2.1 and 2.3.1 both give rules for
> > package naming. The latter is, however, more strict, and
> > both use different terminology. I suggest these two get
> > synchronized and both be evenly strict.
>
> I don't see naming rules in either of those sections.
> Perhaps the numbers have changed. The only rules I see
> are in 5.6.6. Has this bug been fixed?
I've filed a very long time ago... It might very well not apply anymore at
all... Please disregard it, and close the bug.
Thanx for emailing,
kind regards,
Egon
--
PhD Molecular Representation in Chemometrics
Dept. Analytical Chemistry
http://www-cac.sci.kun.nl/people/egonw.html
Reply to: