On 2016-04-10 19:50, Paul Wise wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:49 AM, Philipp Kern wrote:
Maybe it's time to acknowledge that it's mostly busy work at this
point and packages could be authoritative for this kind of information
(and
handle NEW with a simple list of packages).
I expect the ftp
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 10:13:14PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> >> Question is wich information they cover. For me, "optional" means:
> >> conflict free by policy.
> > You are still mixing two completely separate things.
> Which?
The existence of the override mechanism and the optional vs extra pr
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:49 AM, Philipp Kern wrote:
> Maybe it's time to acknowledge that it's mostly busy work at this
> point and packages could be authoritative for this kind of information (and
> handle NEW with a simple list of packages).
I expect the ftpteam will want to put things in NEW
On 2016-04-10 07:08, Ole Streicher wrote:
Jakub Wilk writes:
* Ole Streicher , 2016-04-10, 14:22:
When I look into the "overrides" file for debian stretch:
http://ftp.debian.org/debian/indices/override.stretch.main.gz
I find there more than 48.000 overrides; which means that almost
*all* packa
Andrey Rahmatullin writes:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 08:34:18PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> Question is wich information they cover. For me, "optional" means:
>> conflict free by policy.
> You are still mixing two completely separate things.
Which?
>> > One of the other reasons is dh_make(1).
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:24:55AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> You can also behave like many packagers do: don't pretend that optional
> and extra priorities are different and that the policy (still) has
> different requirements about them. I don't see any downsides with that.
or simply ask
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 08:34:18PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> > Note that you mix two completely different questions in your email.
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 02:22:54PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> >> http://ftp.debian.org/debian/indices/override.stretch.main.gz
> >>
> >> I find there mo
Andrey Rahmatullin writes:
> Note that you mix two completely different questions in your email.
>
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 02:22:54PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> http://ftp.debian.org/debian/indices/override.stretch.main.gz
>>
>> I find there more than 48.000 overrides; which means that almo
Andrey Rahmatullin writes:
> Note that you mix two completely different questions in your email.
>
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 02:22:54PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> http://ftp.debian.org/debian/indices/override.stretch.main.gz
>>
>> I find there more than 48.000 overrides; which means that almo
Note that you mix two completely different questions in your email.
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 02:22:54PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> http://ftp.debian.org/debian/indices/override.stretch.main.gz
>
> I find there more than 48.000 overrides; which means that almost *all*
> packages are overridden.
Santiago Vila writes:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 02:22:54PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> What is the idea behind the current structure?
>
> It all depends on what you call "specialized requirements".
>
> Unless we rely on popcon to decide what's special and what's not,
> this will remain very sub
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 02:22:54PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> What is the idea behind the current structure?
It all depends on what you call "specialized requirements".
Unless we rely on popcon to decide what's special and what's not,
this will remain very subjective.
IMHO, we could well get
Jakub Wilk writes:
> * Ole Streicher , 2016-04-10, 14:22:
>>When I look into the "overrides" file for debian stretch:
>>
>>http://ftp.debian.org/debian/indices/override.stretch.main.gz
>>
>> I find there more than 48.000 overrides; which means that almost
>> *all* packages are overridden.
>
> Exac
* Ole Streicher , 2016-04-10, 14:22:
When I look into the "overrides" file for debian stretch:
http://ftp.debian.org/debian/indices/override.stretch.main.gz
I find there more than 48.000 overrides; which means that almost *all*
packages are overridden.
Exactly _all_ binary packages are in th
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 05:38:50PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Priority: standard currently contains:
> >
> > at, bc, dc, lsof, file, less, sharutils, strace
> > dnsutils, ftp, host, ssh, mtr-tiny, finger, w3m, whois
> > doc-debia
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 07:12:35PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>> I believe it to be one of the more important bits of a standard Unix
>> *desktop* installation - but this just reminds me of the fact that I'm
>> quite uncomfortable with keeping a
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 12:01:43AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Kind of reviving an old thread, but anyway:
> It also includes, but afaics, probably doesn't need to (anymore):
>
> ispell, dictionaries-common, iamerican, ibritish, wamerican
#416572: ibritish: Should not have priority standa
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 07:28:22PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> both required and base in the same list, so you have to look for the split
> yourselve (zlibg1 and adduser atm), but that's not too hard hopefully.
Yes it is not _hard_, but it is exactly this sort of dependency hunting
that is usele
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 08:25:05AM +0100, NN_il_Confusionario wrote:
> Question: is there somewhere on the net a script (*) such that:
> * it installs required/essential packages (_all_ of them but _only_
> them) of such a release as a chroot in that directory
You could create a variant for debo
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 11:03:08PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Frankly, I suggest we look at the list of Unix commands as
> specified by the SUS -- which can also be seen at:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unix_programs
> So -- how many of the standard unix commands
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 04:37:57PM +0900, Michal ??iha?? wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 08:25:05 +0100
> NN_il_Confusionario <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * it installs required/essential packages (_all_ of them but _only_
> > them) of such a release as a chroot in that directory
> Isn't minimal fl
Hi
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 08:25:05 +0100
NN_il_Confusionario <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Question: is there somewhere on the net a script (*) such that:
>
> * it accepts two parameters: a debian release (etch, sarge, woody, ...)
> and an (empty) directory;
>
> * it installs required/essential pa
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 10:26:11AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 00:01:43 +1000, Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > * required/essential -- stuff that can't be removed: libc, dpkg,etc
>
> Packages which are required to be present for the packaging
> system
On jeu, 2007-12-06 at 23:11 +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Although csh is the standard on a lot of systems, including OSX
OSX uses bash by default since Panther (10.3).
--
Yves-Alexis
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECT
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 12:28:55 +1000, Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 05:09:36PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:34:10 -0800, Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>> > I use "time" in benchmarking scripts.
>> I do not find the built in tim
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 05:09:36PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:34:10 -0800, Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > I use "time" in benchmarking scripts.
>> I do not find the built in time to be a substitute for th
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 05:09:36PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:34:10 -0800, Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > I use "time" in benchmarking scripts.
> I do not find the built in time to be a substitute for the good
> old fashioned time command. Observe:
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:34:10 -0800, Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> I use "time" in benchmarking scripts.
>
> I do not find the built in time to be a substitute for the good
> old fashioned time command. [...]
Which is one reason
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:34:10 -0800, Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I use "time" in benchmarking scripts.
I do not find the built in time to be a substitute for the good
old fashioned time command. Observe:
__> time sleep 20
Real: 20.03s User: 0.00s System: 0.00s Percent: 0% Cmd
Bernd Zeimetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Having a /bin/csh falls into "present on all Unix systems and likely to
>> provoke WTF reactions if not there." Also, I'm pretty sure that tcsh
>> is very comfortably the second-most-used interactive shell, way ahead
>> of zsh, on Linux systems.
> Alt
> Having a /bin/csh falls into "present on all Unix systems and likely to
> provoke WTF reactions if not there." Also, I'm pretty sure that tcsh is
> very comfortably the second-most-used interactive shell, way ahead of
> zsh, on Linux systems.
Although csh is the standard on a lot of systems, i
"brian m. carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 04:51:29AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>>On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 07:42:06AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> > time (???)
>>> Likewise. time is a standard Unix program.
>>
>>And
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 04:51:29AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 07:42:06AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>time (???)
Likewise. time is a standard Unix program.
And which is a built-in on bash, tcsh and zsh, so doesn't seem terr
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 07:42:06AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> tcsh (people who remember what it is know how to install it)
>> Having a /bin/csh falls into "present on all Unix systems and likely to
>> provoke WTF reactions if not there."
> Wh
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 10:26:11AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I'm not sure if there's any point to continuing to try to make sure
> > that nothing >= optional conflicts with anything else >= optional.
> Hmm. Can you elaborate on this, please? Is it because it is too
> hard to achi
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 07:42:06AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It also includes, but afaics, probably doesn't need to (anymore):
> > ispell, dictionaries-common, iamerican, ibritish, wamerican
> > m4, texinfo (???)
> texinfo possibly for info a
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 00:01:43 +1000, Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Haven't we more or less already moved away from priorities as meaning
> anything particularly important? We have:
> * required/essential -- stuff that can't be removed: libc, dpkg,etc
Packages which are require
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It also includes, but afaics, probably doesn't need to (anymore):
>
> ispell, dictionaries-common, iamerican, ibritish, wamerican
> m4, texinfo (???)
texinfo possibly for info and dating from the days of needing to have an
info reader to get
38 matches
Mail list logo
