Ian Jackson writes:
>I think that /usr/src should the be domain of the local admin.
I agree. My policy is: If the binaries are in /usr/local/bin, then
the sources go into usr/local/src. If the binaries are in /bin or
/usr/bin, then the sources go into /usr/src.
- Jim V
On 8 Jan, Guy Maor wrote:
> Fabrizio Polacco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I recently managed to add some sources in my -dbg shared lib packages,
>> to make them easily debuggable. (See bug#16038 on 30 Dec)
>
> I rather liked your solution to the problem of debuggable shared libs,
> but you n
Fabrizio Polacco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I recently managed to add some sources in my -dbg shared lib packages,
> to make them easily debuggable. (See bug#16038 on 30 Dec)
I rather liked your solution to the problem of debuggable shared libs,
but you need to figure out a way to not need to
On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Dale Scheetz wrote:
>
> > I am set up to boot several linux partitions as well as
> > a dos partition and a loop-root system. I am much happier editing that
> > beast myself thankyou ;-)
>
> A loop-root?
>
With a small patch to
On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> I will also never feel comfortable with an automatic process editing my
> lilo.config file.
I do agree on that... :)
> I am set up to boot several linux partitions as well as
> a dos partition and a loop-root system. I am much happier editing that
> beas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Mitchell) wrote on 06.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
> >
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Mitchell) wrote on 06.01.98 in
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >
> > > > Stephen Zander
Stephen Zander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Martin Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I know, however it would allow people to much more easily install and
> > maintain their own kernel sources for these includes.
>
> Surely if they're clever enough for that, they're clever enough to
> ove
On Tue, Jan 06, 1998 at 11:42:52AM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> When I try a new kernel and it doesn't work, I only have to edit
> lilo.config an run lilo to get back to the old one (actually I always
> leave hooks in lilo to get back to the "old" kernel). No package
> installation is required.
>
On Tue, Jan 06, 1998 at 04:11:57PM +0100, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> > I think it does gain something; it is much easier to have multiple
> > versions around. If I compile a new 2.1 kernel and find that
> > it is not too good (like 2.1.76 seems to have
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dale Scheetz) wrote on 06.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 6 Jan 1998, Kai Henningsen wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dale Scheetz) wrote on 05.01.98 in
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think that /usr/src should the b
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Mitchell) wrote on 06.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Mitchell) wrote on 06.01.98 in
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > Stephen Zander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > Martin Mitchell <[
Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't see why not? Simply take the debian diffs and apply them against
> *today's* kernel and you are off and running. The kernel file organization
> hasn't changed in ages. (I hope that doesn't mean that someone will change
> it simply because it is ol
Martin Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I know, however it would allow people to much more easily install and
> maintain their own kernel sources for these includes.
Surely if they're clever enough for that, they're clever enough to
override a Recommends (not a Suggests) heading. Maybe that
On 6 Jan 1998, Rob Browning wrote:
> Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I will also never feel comfortable with an automatic process editing my
> > lilo.config file. I am set up to boot several linux partitions as well as
> > a dos partition and a loop-root system. I am much happier e
Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I will also never feel comfortable with an automatic process editing my
> lilo.config file. I am set up to boot several linux partitions as well as
> a dos partition and a loop-root system. I am much happier editing that
> beast myself thankyou ;-)
Dale,
On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 05, 1998 at 05:48:27PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > I never understood why the kernel source was made into a .deb package. It
>
> Because it's something we expect people will want to recompile,
> so we should make it readily available to t
On 6 Jan 1998, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dale Scheetz) wrote on 05.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >
> > > I think that /usr/src should the be domain of the local admin.
> > >
> > > I don't think kernel-{header,source}-x.xx.deb should
On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> I think it does gain something; it is much easier to have multiple
> versions around. If I compile a new 2.1 kernel and find that
> it is not too good (like 2.1.76 seems to have broken sound
> for me so I went back to 2.1.72), I can just reinstall the ol
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Mitchell) wrote on 06.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Stephen Zander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Martin Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > > Why does lib
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dale Scheetz) wrote on 05.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> > I think that /usr/src should the be domain of the local admin.
> >
> > I don't think kernel-{header,source}-x.xx.deb should exist, really,
> > because I don't think source cod
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Mitchell) wrote on 06.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Stephen Zander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Martin Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > Why does libc6 depend on kernel-header ?
> > >
> > > It's libc6-dev th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Regarding "Re: What's Debian's /usr/src policy" of 8:09 PM -0800 1/5/98,
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 05, 1998 at 11:54:14AM -0800, Stephen Zander wrote:
>> Martin Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Ian Ja
Stephen Zander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Martin Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Why does libc6 depend on kernel-header ?
> >
> > It's libc6-dev that has that dependency.
> > Perhaps weakening the dependency to Suggests might be the best s
On Mon, Jan 05, 1998 at 11:54:14AM -0800, Stephen Zander wrote:
> Martin Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Why does libc6 depend on kernel-header ?
> >
> > It's libc6-dev that has that dependency.
> > Perhaps weakening the dependency to Suggests
On Mon, Jan 05, 1998 at 05:48:27PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> I never understood why the kernel source was made into a .deb package. It
Because it's something we expect people will want to recompile,
so we should make it readily available to them.
> doesn't make sense to me. I also don't see an
On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Fabrizio Polacco wrote:
>
> > On 5 Jan, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> > > On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > >
> > >> I think that /usr/src should the be domain of the local admin.
> > >
> >
> > I disagree.
> > /usr/local/
On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Fabrizio Polacco wrote:
> On 5 Jan, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> > On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >
> >> I think that /usr/src should the be domain of the local admin.
> >
>
> I disagree.
> /usr/local/src is for local admin.
Indeed. In general:
- /usr/local is for
On 5 Jan, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>> I think that /usr/src should the be domain of the local admin.
>
I disagree.
/usr/local/src is for local admin.
>> This may be the case if you look at all packages, but I have never
>> installed any packages that
Dale Scheetz wrote:
> I never understood why the kernel source was made into a .deb package. It
> doesn't make sense to me.
I agree with this, I see nothing wrong with just having it available as a
source package, perhaps with kernel-package merged into it as the debian/
directory.
> I also don't
On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I think that /usr/src should the be domain of the local admin.
>
> I don't think kernel-{header,source}-x.xx.deb should exist, really,
> because I don't think source code should be distributed as .deb files
> anyway. So I'm not unhappy about making a poli
Martin Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Why does libc6 depend on kernel-header ?
>
> It's libc6-dev that has that dependency.
> Perhaps weakening the dependency to Suggests might be the best solution.
No, you can't. Their are multiple header file
On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I think that /usr/src should the be domain of the local admin.
Why? Could you please give a few arguments for that?
According to FSSTND and FHS:
``/usr/src: [...] Any non-local source code should be placed in this
subdirectory.''
[snip]
> Manoj
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think that /usr/src should the be domain of the local admin.
I agree.
> I don't think kernel-{header,source}-x.xx.deb should exist, really,
> because I don't think source code should be distributed as .deb files
> anyway. So I'm not unhappy about maki
I think that /usr/src should the be domain of the local admin.
I don't think kernel-{header,source}-x.xx.deb should exist, really,
because I don't think source code should be distributed as .deb files
anyway. So I'm not unhappy about making a policy decision that leaves
kernel-{header,source} wit
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hold on right there!! This is something indistinguishable from
> magic!! kernel-headers installs files in
> /usr/src/kernel-headers-X.X.XX. It never installs into
> /usr/src/linux-* or usr/src/my-kernel-version. The postinst may
> create the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark W. Eichin) wrote on 31.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Isn't there something *else* going on here as well? Namely, why does
> libc6-dev suddenly want kernel-headers, and a particular version at
> that, when neither it nor libc5-dev ever did before (and for
> good reasons?)
---Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, the kernel header files are getting to be quite
> architecture dependent, and hence if libc development packages
> continued to include kernel headers explicitly, we would need
> different headers for different architectures
Hi,
>>"Christoph" == Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Christoph> I want to be able to change the kernel-headers a program is
Christoph> compiled with. Certain tools (especially in 2.1.X) are
Christoph> dependant on a certain kernel version. Nothing wrong with
Christoph> providing the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Browning) wrote on 29.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I find this hard to believe. kernel-headers and kernel-source
> > packages write to the directories kernel-headers-X.X.XX and
> > kernel-source-X.X.XX. They create
Isn't there something *else* going on here as well? Namely, why does
libc6-dev suddenly want kernel-headers, and a particular version at
that, when neither it nor libc5-dev ever did before (and for
good reasons?)
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PR
On 29 Dec 1997, Rob Browning wrote:
> I think you overlooked part of my post. I mentioned that *I* had
> created /usr/src/linux as a link to /usr/src/linux-my-kernel-version.
> Then when I installed kernel-headers (because the new libc6-dev made
> me), kernel-headers saw the link, decided it was
Hi,
>>"Rob" == Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Rob> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The vendor, I think. kernel-header-x.xx and kernel-source packages
>> have always assumed ownership of /usr/src; this is not a new libc6
>> thing.
Rob> It's new for anyone who has never ha
On Dec 29, Rob Browning wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The vendor, I think. kernel-header-x.xx and kernel-source
> > packages have always assumed ownership of /usr/src; this is not a new
> > libc6 thing.
>
> It's new for anyone who has never had kernel-headers a
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The vendor, I think. kernel-header-x.xx and kernel-source
> packages have always assumed ownership of /usr/src; this is not a new
> libc6 thing.
It's new for anyone who has never had kernel-headers and kernel-source
installed before now (beca
Hi,
>>"Rob" == Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Rob> The question is, "who owns /usr/src, Debian or the local
Rob> sysadmin?"
Rob> A recent run-in with the latest pre-release libc6 packages made
Rob> me realize that I hadn't fully considered the role of /usr/src on
Rob> a Debian system.
Along with this, in the similar thread, I think we should set aside a
place in our "/usr/src/" for the building of Debian packages, using
`cvs-buildpackage'. (which I promise to _try_ and grok this week.)
How about... "/usr/src/debian/{build,work}"?
It would be good to put into policy a nam
On 26 Dec 1997, Rob Browning wrote:
> The question is, "who owns /usr/src, Debian or the local sysadmin?"
I'm not the official word on this but I think Debian "owns" everything but
/usr/local (in which it can only make a directory). There are exceptions
if your directory isn't in the file system
47 matches
Mail list logo
