Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two
On 21/11/06, Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue November 21 2006 03:18, Bruce Sass wrote: > On Tue November 21 2006 01:40, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Mon November 20 2006 23:52, Russ Allbery wrote: > > >> +from http://www.unix.org/version3/online.html " > > >> + name="The Open Group"> after free > > >> +registration. > > > > > > Any reason for not using: > > > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/ At this point, I don't remember why the URL got chosen. I was on the Austin lists for quite some time, and Andrew Josey put out a call for people to package the SUSv3 standards. I remember sorting out the details with him at the time. Hmmm, ok, I see what you are getting at, from the terms and conditions: """ We ask readers to give us their name and email address for a number of reasons: To enable us to gauge the interest in any particular document/subject area To enable us to alert you to new editions of the specification To enable us to send you details of any corrigenda """ The 009695399 in the www.opengroup.org URI looks to be a publication number of some sort (one digit shy of an ISBN though); it is used by the wikipedia entry (where I first found it), and the similar 9-digit bit of the URL in the Debian susv3 installer gets rewritten to it. I think that if the susv3 Maintainer (Jeff Bailey) registered as "Debian" to get the URL then it would be OK, maybe even preferable, to use: http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/ in Policy. I could do this, but I don't know how to get appropriate permission to represent myself as "Debian" to the Open Group. I've added [EMAIL PROTECTED] to the cc: list to see if there's a suggestion. -- Jeff Bailey - http://www.raspberryginger.com/jbailey/
Bug#274957: ITP: susv3 -- Fetch and install SUSv3 documentation
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist * Package name: susv3 Upstream Author : Copyright (c) 2001-2003 IEEE and The Open Group * License : Installer Package: Public Domain Description : Fetch and install SUSv3 documentation This package was created at the request of Andrew Josey from the Austin Group (The committee that handles the Posix standards). The documents do not allow redistribution, but are located in a way that is easy to fetch. Because the upstream documentation is non-Free, this package is targetted at contrib. (For those of you thinking that this is deja-vu, susv2 and susv3 are occasionally both useful to have around) -- System Information: Debian Release: 3.1 APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.8-1-k7 Locale: LANG=en_CA.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_CA.UTF-8
Bug#274956: ITP: susv2 -- Fetch and install SUSv2 documentation
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist * Package name: susv2 Upstream Author : Copyright (c) 2001-2003 IEEE and The Open Group * License : Installer Package: Public Domain Description : Fetch and install SUSv2 documentation This package was created at the request of Andrew Josey from the Austin Group (The committee that handles the Posix standards). The documents do not allow redistribution, but are located in a way that is easy to fetch. Because the upstream documentation is non-Free, this package is targetted at contrib. -- System Information: Debian Release: 3.1 APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.8-1-k7 Locale: LANG=en_CA.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_CA.UTF-8
Re: Bug#152778: DBS feature request vs dpkg-source v2
On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 09:22:56AM +1000, Brian May wrote: > I received this wish list request for dbs. > Ideally, I want to make the transition as easy as possible from dbs to > dpkg-source v2 once it comes out of being experimental. So I do not want > to add new features to dbs that may make this transition harder because > they are not supported by dpkg-source v2. > However, I don't have time to look at dpkg-source v2 now, not until it > becomes feasible to convert Heimdal (and this won't be while uploads are > being rejected). > So what should I do with this wishlist request? Hey Brian, sorry about the delay in responding. If you're comfortable that dpkg-source v2 is actually going to see the light in the next 6 months or so, I wouldn't worry about it. Because it's in experimental, I haven't looked at it at all, but I've been intending to move to it as soon as it's even minimally ready. If you have the feeling that it will take longer than 6 months to hit unstable, then you should maybe nudge me to write a patch for you. =) Tks, Jeff Bailey -- I reincarnated for this?
Re: i386 compatibility & libstdc++
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 08:51:41AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > Should Debian further support the i386 target, or make (at least i486) > the default for code generation? Asking because I'm unsure how to > provide the libstdc++5 package. FWIW, hurd-i386 doesn't now, nor will it likely ever run on i386. We're i486 (with a co-processor) and above. Tks, Jeff Bailey -- You said homosexuals form a small percentage of the population. So do Jews. Is that a reason to deny someone equality? - Richard Marceau
