On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, Anthony Towns wrote:
Steve Greenland wrote:
On 12-Jun-05, 02:27 (CDT), Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You need to convince either git or GNU Interactive Tools
to change its name upstream then. Since git is the newcomer
and its name is already taken (by a GNU proj
On Thu August 10 2006 10:16, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Goswin von Brederlow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.08.10.1647 +0100]:
> > How about allowing conffiles to list files that are generated at
> > install time and are not included in the deb?
>
> You can, but then you run up against policy
On Thu August 10 2006 12:40, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.08.10.1925 +0100]:
> > Would updating /var/lib/dpkg/info/*.list files without touching the
> > appropriate Installed-Size: field be OK?
>
> Definitely not. /var/lib/dpk
On Thu August 10 2006 13:13, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.08.10.1959 +0100]:
> > Such a utility would need to be shipped with dpkg, a 3rd party or
> > random DD implementing it would be silly for anything but local
> > consu
On Thu August 10 2006 15:10, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.08.10.2124 +0100]:
> > An "update-package" command, run at install time by the
> > maintainer's scripts right after file generation succeeds, would
On Thu August 10 2006 16:20, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.08.10.2237 +0100]:
> > No point setting oneself up for bugs if it is not necessary.
> >
> > The script wouldn't determine anything, it would simply append
> >
On Fri August 11 2006 04:51, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Bruce Sass writes ("Re: Silly Packaging Problem"):
> > "files" and "size" accommodate the desire to include generated or
> > packageless files and their size (if knowable) in the dpkg DB.
>
> This
On Sat August 12 2006 09:34, Matthias Klose wrote:
First time I've seen the design goals laid out like this. Thanks, and
sorry if this is out of place.
> No, not the whole design goal. Although the document is titled
> "developer's view", the other goals should be mentioned as well.
> These are
On Mon August 14 2006 00:03, Steve Langasek wrote:
> ... my premise
> that pure python modules should only declare Provides when something
> exists in the archive which actually *needs* them...
What of stuff which will never be in the archive?
["ask for it" is an obvious answer, so...]
Any though
On Tue August 22 2006 13:04, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Given that downloads like Debian ISOs are already putting a heavy
> bandwidth load on the servers and that they are already shared among
> many servers, I don't think it is a good idea to encourage users to
> load several servers at once with o
On Wed August 23 2006 05:30, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
> Am Mittwoch 23 August 2006 12:41 schrieb Josselin Mouette:
> > Le mercredi 23 août 2006 à 11:30 +0200, Christian Perrier a écrit :
> > > I have a few doubts about the knowledge of the average user for
> > > Bittorrent. For sure, having BitTorren
On Wed August 23 2006 12:32, Blars Blarson wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >When a nice bittorrent frontend is installed, the user will only
> > have to click on the link to start the download. This is true for
> > Windows and Linux.
>
> You left out the reco
On Fri August 25 2006 03:46, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> I cannot 100% agree with You, althought Your point is for sure
> partially valid.
Uhm, Debian's target audience is not Joe User, never has been AFAICT.
Joe isn't usually capable of determining which MTA, web server, proxy
server, etc., sp
On Sun August 27 2006 06:47, Sander Marechal wrote:
> Hendrik Sattler wrote:
> > It's all about expectations. Always keep in mind that the target
> > group differs a lot between Ubuntu and Debian.
>
> I wouldn't say they differ. Ubuntu targets only a small subset of
> Debian users. Maybe Debian sho
On Sun August 27 2006 18:55, you wrote:
> Deferring to Ubuntu for this work is the worst sort of defeatist
> nonsense and I will not to bow to it. I like collaborating with the
> Ubuntu people, but I refuse to compromise my own work or Debian as a
> project just so that they can excel.
I think you
[sorry for the duplicate, but I want to fix the threading]
On Sun August 27 2006 18:55, David Nusinow wrote:
> Deferring to Ubuntu for this work is the worst sort of defeatist
> nonsense and I will not to bow to it. I like collaborating with the
> Ubuntu people, but I refuse to compromise my own w
On Wed August 30 2006 02:52, Subredu Manuel wrote:
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le jeudi 17 août 2006 à 11:48 -0400, Anthony L. Bryan a écrit :
> >
> > Given that downloads like Debian ISOs are already putting a heavy
> > bandwidth load on the servers and that they are already shared
> > among man
On Thu August 31 2006 00:27, Subredu Manuel wrote:
> Bruce Sass wrote:
> > It is also not clear what will happen when a release is made and
> > hundreds (thousands?) of clients hit the fastest mirror, whose
> > download rate then drops, prompting all the clients to try
>
Hello Anthony,
Thanks for the response.
On Thu August 31 2006 12:17, you wrote:
> Hi Bruce, just wanted to say thanks for investigating Metalink. These
> are all valid concerns. For the last few months, the only big user of
> Metalinks has been OpenOffice.org, and I haven't heard any complaints
>
On Sat September 16 2006 16:56, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Steve Langasek]
>
> > However, that's not the same thing as saying it's ok for sysvinit
> > to *make* /var/run a tmpfs on the admin's behalf. I think it's
> > pretty clear that this violates the letter of the FHS, and such a
> > change
On Sat October 21 2006 13:35, Darren Salt wrote:
> I demand that Hendrik Sattler may or may not have written...
> > 64bit kernels are not available in the i386 archive. That makes the
> > 64bit libs rather useless, doesn't it?
>
> No - you could be using a locally-built 64-bit kernel.
Perhaps i386
On Sun October 22 2006 23:22, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I still think we should go for quality of implementation.
>
> I also seem to be a minority in this regard.
I sincerely hope not.
> If the project feels that we should downgrade policy not to
> set our maintainer scri
On Mon October 30 2006 16:46, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
<...>
> However, confirming each spam I have
> in my mailbox vs. the web interface is time consuming and slightly
> frustating when you find that the spam had no opportunity to get in
> (the bug was archived) or it was already remo
On Tue October 31 2006 21:15, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Bruce Sass wrote:
> > I have yet to see a spam message sent to the BTS which used a
> > "Package:" pseudoheader, so that should work to eliminate BTS spam
> > without preventing non-DD's helping out.
>
On Tue October 31 2006 23:02, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > On Tue October 31 2006 21:15, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > > Bruce Sass wrote:
> > > > I have yet to see a spam message sent to the BTS which used a
> > > > &q
On Wed November 1 2006 16:20, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> When I have suggested that (sending signed messages to the BTS to be
> accepted for processing) it was
>
> a) for mails to -close or to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to prevent a
> spammer/malicious person from closing all the bugs or mangl
On Tue November 7 2006 04:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Yet there are also many users, probably those who are not
> professional administrators, that _need_ for everything to work out
> of the box. Who should we help more: those who get paid to administer
> the machines, and are probably much mo
On Fri November 10 2006 02:36, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 12:01:10AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Firstly, should we be pointing to the SuS instead of POSIX
> > (there is work going on a new version of the SUS), since it is
> > open, and readily avail
On Sat November 11 2006 22:10, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> So why not just specify all maintainer scripts just use
> /bin/bash? I am not sure. Perhaps because allowing scripts to
> specify /bin/sh would allow then to be sped up a trifle when /bin/sh
> is a nimbler shell? Is this worth the co
On Tue November 14 2006 19:06, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> I refused to stop using test -a in my packages as well, and refused
> to declare #!/bin/bash.
>
> Here's why.
>
> test -a is not a "bashism".
>
> It's a feature of the Debian test program. It happens that bash
> declares a builtin, but th
On Wed November 15 2006 10:23, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 14:40 +0100, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> > * test.c: New file, from bash.
> >
> > So you in fact _are_ using a bash feature, and there was a time
> > when /usr/bin/test did not even exist (but hey, neither did Debian
>
On Wed November 15 2006 15:08, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Since the file was used to provide both the bash builtin and the
> > standalone test, and -a is undocumented in the test manpage, it is
> > most likely a bash feature.
On Wed November 15 2006 16:45, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Hmmm, I guess I'm confused by Thomas's statement...
> >
> > "I refused to stop using test -a in my packages as well, and
> > refused to declare #!/bin/bas
On Wed November 15 2006 18:15, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed November 15 2006 16:45, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> No, but Policy currently requires scripts that use features not
> >> available from POSIX to declare an appropri
On Wed November 15 2006 17:08, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 16:28 -0700, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > Hmmm, I guess I'm confused by Thomas's statement...
> At that point, I suggested and still suggest that we change Policy to
> restrict /bin/sh to a speci
On Wed November 15 2006 21:50, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
<...>
> This does specify what the scripts may expect, but drops all
> wording from this section regarding what the policy expectation of
> /bin/sh is.
I was going to do that, then added it back in because it is implied and
explicit
On Thu November 16 2006 11:06, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 04:14 -0700, Bruce Sass wro
>
> > AFAICT, "/bin/sh can be a symbolic link to any POSIX compatible
> > shell" does not really convey what Debian wants, it would be better
> > to state
On Thu November 16 2006 18:23, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:40:20 -0700, Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > On Thu November 16 2006 11:06, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> The problem is that "POSIX feature" is a meaningless term in thi
On Sun November 19 2006 14:03, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 18:43 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 08:01:04AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2006-11-18 at 11:30 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > > > > Well, the goal was (in part) to ca
On Sun November 19 2006 15:05, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 14:53 -0700, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > On Sun November 19 2006 14:03, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 18:43 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Nov 18, 20
On Sun November 19 2006 15:59, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 15:47 -0700, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > > Posix puts grep, ls, kill, test, and echo all in *exactly the
> > > same category*. So why does posh treat them so differently?
> >
> > In t
On Thu November 23 2006 13:56, Jari Aalto wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "bash" is a better shell for most users, since it has some nice
> > features absent from "dash", and is a required part of the system.
>
> This refers to inteactive use. dash suits well for scri
On Fri November 24 2006 13:15, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Instead of focusing and hammering again and again on /bin/sh, why not
> instead ask maintainers to do #!/bin/dash?
because bash offers a larger superset of sh features than dash, and "sh"
is a standard part of System V-like unix systems
On Fri November 24 2006 14:42, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 14:03 -0700, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > On Fri November 24 2006 13:15, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > Instead of focusing and hammering again and again on /bin/sh, why
> > > not instead ask ma
On Fri November 24 2006 15:24, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 15:12 -0700, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > Sure, but since all "sh" scripts would be better off if they
> > specified dash as their command interpreter... #!/bin/sh use would
> > disappear.
On Tue July 25 2006 05:38, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Except that libapt does NOT correctly handle dependency loops and can
> split them between dpkg calls causing install failures.
>
> The more circular depends there are the more likely such a failure
> becomes. So wouldn't it be a good thing t
Hi,
I accidentally deleted all the messages in my debian-user folder
. However, I do remember enough of your original post to
(hopefully) enlighten you. I have also done the nasty cross-post
thing to -devel because I conclude with a thought on how to get the
package pool living up to its potenti
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > [3] http://www.fs.tum.de/~bunk/Debian/freeze
>
> Reading the whole "Future releases of Debian" thread, I thought that
> the main idea was that Debian need a more 'readable' status for the next
> stab
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Chris Cheney wrote:
<...>
> Do we even know which packages in sarge have RC bugs? The last time I
> looked when you close a bug with an upload to sid it closes it entirely
> still. So we don't really have a good idea of how many RC bugs exist in
> sarge, only how many are in si
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, cobaco wrote:
> I'd agree if there had been a rewrite of kdelibs or something, but kde 3.1 ->
> 3.2 is evolutionary without big changes to what was already there.
It does not take a big change to break software...
e.g., openssh changed a message and the sftp kioslave broke
htt
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 11:18:24AM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, cobaco wrote:
> > > I'd agree if there had been a rewrite of kdelibs or something, but
> > > kde 3.1 -> 3.2 is evolutionary without bi
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote:
<...>
> But now we're discussing about it and I express my opinion: since these
> packages in their postinst script install non-free stuff, I think that
> even if there's no non-free stuff within the packages themselves, the
> result of the installation of th
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 09:47:46AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>
> | > When your conclusion is at odds with reality you should rethink your
> | > argument... if Debian was to start classifying packages based on
> | > the probable or possible results of
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Colin Watson wrote:
> OK. How does one create an installer package which correctly does the
> following:
>
> * creates a Debian package for the thing it's installing
the installer contains a diff and dsc, downloads the orig source,
then builds a .deb
> * installs that pack
On Sun January 21 2007 02:24, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 09:22:57AM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 17, 2007, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > > am I wrong or one can have foo.png in foo.desktop, and foo.xpm in
> > > foo.menu? If upstream does not provide an xpm icon, the "c
On Sun January 21 2007 16:29, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 06:04:09AM -0700, Bruce Sass a écrit :
> > I also agree that automatic down-converting would be good, but
> > think that automatic generation of menus from pieces at package
> > install time would be
On Tue June 12 2007 01:20:30 am Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > "kilo" in "kilobyte" is not an SI prefix.
It is not even a prefix.
> "Kilo" is always a SI prefix.
In computing the "K" stands for "kilobyte", not "kilo" + "byte", and a
kilobyte has always been the number of memory locations addressab
On Tue June 12 2007 02:25:59 pm Gustavo Franco wrote:
> That's the point, you would be using testing for development and
> cherry picking changes from unstable manually. Remember that in this
> scenario we still have unstable to testing transition so if you don't
> push stuff manually it will get t
On Sun July 15 2007 07:19:45 am Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 15 juillet 2007 à 14:11 +0100, Neil Williams a écrit :
> > Why not drop the Debian Menu Policy completely? The only sane
> > argument against .desktop is hierarchy support but then the most
> > pertinent complaint against menu is
On Mon July 16 2007 12:03:17 pm Neil Williams wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 18:16:49 -0600
> Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I like Don's idea - remove the Debian menu from those window managers
> etc. that understand .desktop files and make the Debian menu aware
On Wed July 25 2007 10:57:54 am Josselin Mouette wrote:
> If the users installs the distribution with default settings or
> starts a session on a multi-user setup, he should find a usable menu,
> not a menu with all possible applications he never wanted to install.
Well, if there is stuff he never
On Thu July 26 2007 01:02:57 am Frank Küster wrote:
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If an application is used so infrequently, it shouldn't have its
> > place in a menu.
>
> It seems we have a very different notion of what a menu is. To me,
> the reply "Exactly because it is used
On Wed August 8 2007 10:01:40 am Daniel Burrows wrote:
> Just to clarify, aptitude didn't "come up" with anything. This was
> the standard behavior in Debian at the time (dselect was far more
> draconian about forcing you to install recommended packages), and one
> of the top complaints I got wa
On Thu August 9 2007 12:08:05 pm Florent Rougon wrote:
> Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > dselect doesn't force you to install recommended packages; for as
> > long as I can remember (since Bo) it has given you a list with the
> > recommends preselected, a
On Mon August 27 2007 04:05:24 pm Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> And
> it's no way we will accept the statically linked version in Debian.
Why is that?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon August 27 2007 05:33:05 pm Romain Beauxis wrote:
> Le Tuesday 28 August 2007 00:17:40 Bruce Sass, vous avez écrit :
> > On Mon August 27 2007 04:05:24 pm Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > > And
> > > it's no way we will accept the statically linked version in
&
On Thu August 30 2007 09:52:13 am Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 04:47:59PM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 10:46:47PM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > > Of course, obviously---for software where there is a choice, but
> > > fo
On Tue September 11 2007 01:07:52 am Steve Langasek wrote:
> Does anyone know of a case where this would give the wrong result?
> I'm not sure what an xdmcp login would look like here, for instance,
> or if startx creates a utmp entry that I should be concerned about
> registering as a false posit
May as well add Opera to the list...
On Tue September 11 2007 11:52:36 am Anthony Towns wrote:
> nameinst vote old recent no-files
> iceweasel 41897 22448 6839 1260010
> epiphany-browser 32506 11395 7614 13493 4
> w3m
--exec . Probably risking some false kills.
> 2. Ignore the problem, and leave squashfs systems broken.
>
> Any other way out?
maybe this will help...
-
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 04:08:38AM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
> On Mon September 3 2007 07:47:23 am you [Marc Haber] wrote:
> &g
On Wed September 19 2007 04:53:10 pm John Goerzen wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 September 2007 5:43:03 pm David Given wrote:
> > John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > > I like this idea, especially if there were a short description
> > > about each program and relevent configuration files.
> >
>
On Thu September 20 2007 09:25:23 pm Oleg Verych (Gmane) wrote:
> 19-09-2007, Bruce Sass:
> > I'm hoping the dpkg "triggers" functionality Ian Jackson has been
> > working on will help solve that wart though.
>
> How exactly?
Exactly? I don't know. I
On Sat September 22 2007 12:16:18 am Oleg Verych (Gmane) wrote:
> 21-09-2007, Bruce Sass:
> > On Thu September 20 2007 09:25:23 pm Oleg Verych (Gmane) wrote:
> >> 19-09-2007, Bruce Sass:
> >> > I'm hoping the dpkg "triggers" functionality Ian Jackson ha
On Sat September 22 2007 10:21:43 pm Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 03:46:26 -0600, Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > On Sat September 22 2007 12:16:18 am Oleg Verych (Gmane) wrote:
> >> 21-09-2007, Bruce Sass:
> >> > On Thu September 20
On Sun September 23 2007 11:00:58 am Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 04:13:41 -0600, Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > On Sat September 22 2007 10:21:43 pm Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 03:46:26 -0600, Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTE
On Sun September 23 2007 03:08:59 pm Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 14:26:29 -0600, Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > On Sun September 23 2007 11:00:58 am Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> We can create any number of dummy packages on the fly, but what is
On Tue September 25 2007 09:22:02 am Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 02:36:24 -0600, Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > On Sun September 23 2007 03:08:59 pm Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 14:26:29 -0600, Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu September 27 2007 01:33:21 am Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 04:04:33 -0600, Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hmm? You assumed, and I quote "there are no such situations
> which would not already have a virtual package". Since ther
On Thu September 27 2007 05:38:53 pm Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 08:08:49 -0600, Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > The bit you're still missing is the first part of the question you
> > didn't answer: "Is there any situation where own
Someone wrote:
> If you actually need to make this sort of response, could you do the
> rest of us a favor and not do so publicly?
Ya, you're right. Sorry.
My frustration got the better of me.
- Bruce
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Con
/sbin and /usr/sbin, /lib and /usr/lib directories?
AFAICT, the reason is so that a minimal but functional system is
guaranteed to exist so long as a local HDD with a root filesystem is
available (which doesn't necessarily include /usr); and that is a good
thing to have because it gives develop
On August 10, 2010 04:18:10 am Stanislav Maslovski wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 03:15:35AM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > /sbin and /usr/sbin, /lib and /usr/lib directories?
> >
> > AFAICT, the reason is so that a minimal but functional system is
> > guaranteed to e
On August 10, 2010 04:25:07 am Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 at 03:15:35 -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > AFAICT, the reason is so that a minimal but functional system is
> > guaranteed to exist so long as a local HDD with a root filesystem
> > is available
>
>
On August 10, 2010 03:53:10 pm Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Bruce Sass writes:
> > I was curious so...
> > $ for f in /bin/* /sbin/*; do if [ "`file $f | grep ELF`" != "" ] ;
> > then if [ "`ldd $f | grep /usr`" != "" ] ; then echo
On August 15, 2010 04:30:04 pm Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 03:15:35 -0600 Bruce Sass wrote:
> > /sbin and /usr/sbin, /lib and /usr/lib directories?
> >
> > AFAICT, the reason is so that a minimal but functional system is
> > guaranteed to exist so long
On September 22, 2010 01:35:14 am Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> On 09/22/2010 08:47 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 07:31:45AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> >>> Then unstable/testing would roll further as usual
> >>
> >> How does a major, disruptive, transition get done?
> >
> > I think
yes, number_pad
why, because I don't need to remember what the arrows on the keys mean
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Moritz Moeller-Herrmann wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 02:51:53AM +0100, Moritz Moeller-Herrmann wrote:
>
> >> You do realize that the desktop standard has more features than the
> >> debian menu system? Like i18n, icon theming, dynamic construction
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Tom wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 02:06:48PM +0100, Moritz Moeller-Herrmann wrote:
> > freedesktop entry features > debian menu file features
> >
> > Therefore you can do a lossless transition from .desktop to menu, but not
> > the other way around. It makes sense to use th
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Moritz Moeller-Herrmann wrote:
>
> > > In which format shall application packages store
> > > their menu information.
>
> > It doesn'
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Have you quantified the "bloat" you are speaking about? Can the same
> argument not apply to any i18n effort?
Yes, using KDE2. The script removed any lines with "[""]" in
them from KDE files (was possible at the time without incurring
breakage) and wo
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> > > Have you quantified the "bloat" you are speaking about? Can the same
> > > argument not apply to any i18n effo
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Chris Cheney wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 01:28:51PM -0700, Bruce Sass wrote:
<...>
> .desktop files are not bloated... period. They include i18n which for
> you is bloat since you obviously can communicate in English.
"not bloated... period
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Chris Cheney wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 05:47:17PM -0700, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Chris Cheney wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 01:28:51PM -0700, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > <...>
> > > .desktop files are not blo
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Moritz Moeller-Herrmann wrote:
<...>
> Of course the system can and will be improved, once it is generally adopted.
Improving it at the outset will speed up its adoption.
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Billy Biggs wrote:
> Bruce Sass ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > The above is just the tip of the iceberg with respect to i18n, I had
> > roughly the same size savings when I was removing translations from
> > KDE2 files---KDE3 has more files, more tran
On June 1, 2012 10:00:52 AM Serge wrote:
...
> I considered that. I was just trying to keep description shorter and
> easier to understand. A more complete description would look like:
> 0. fstab is already processed and /tmp was (or was not) mounted to a
>separate partition.
> 1. init-script c
On June 2, 2012 03:48:03 AM Serge wrote:
> 2012/6/2 Bruce Sass wrote:
> >> Maintainer will probably write a better code.
> >
> > Much better... if TMPTIME != 0 it will be necessary to mount the FS based
> > /tmp, clean it, create a tmpfs, move anything left in /tm
On June 28, 2012 12:58:09 AM Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2012, Thomas Koch wrote:
> > Thus having said, I believe that the world (and Debians archive) does
> > have all the window managers it needs. :-)
>
> I beg to differ. To say it mildy :)
+1 (says the guy building UDE from so
On July 10, 2012 10:39:10 AM Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2012-07-10, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > No. Only if installing recommends is turned on, which cannot be
> > guaranteed.
>
> There is many ways to break your system. turning off installation of
> recommends is one of them.
So, if Recommends should
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
