George Danchev writes ("Bug#375502: debian-policy must clarify how sub-policies
should be managed"):
> If there is no `official policy process' then what justifies the presence of
> policy-process.sgml and /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/policy-process.*
> respectivel
On Tuesday 27 June 2006 10:10, George Danchev wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 June 2006 01:43, Chris Waters wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 06:05:17PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > > What you tend to disagree with ? I'm asking for clarification how
> > > sub-policies must be handled, and this must be
On Monday 26 June 2006 19:10, Ian Jackson wrote:
> George Danchev writes ("Bug#375502: debian-policy must clarify how
sub-policies should be managed"):
> > The current paragraphs of #1.4, #11.9, #11.9 show perl-policy as
> > a part debian-policy package and emacs-pol
George Danchev writes ("Bug#375502: debian-policy must clarify how sub-policies
should be managed"):
> The current paragraphs of #1.4, #11.9, #11.9 show perl-policy as
> a part debian-policy package and emacs-policy as a separate package.
> I think that all sub-policies sho
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.7.2.1
Severity: wishlist
The current paragraphs of #1.4, #11.9, #11.9 show perl-policy as
a part debian-policy package and emacs-policy as a separate package.
I think that all sub-policies should obey same rules, e.g. each of them
to be managed in a separate packa
5 matches
Mail list logo
