[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joe Nahmias) writes:
> Hello Chirag,
>
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 05:23:14PM +0530, Chirag Kantharia wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I've uploaded netdump package to mentors.debian.net and am seeking for
>> a sponsor for this package.
>
> I took a look at your package, a few issues:
>
> 0)
Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
> On Thursday 15 July 2004 15.15, Martin Dickopp wrote:
> > Sebastian Henschel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [/etc/default]
> > See Policy 9.3.2. (Disclaimer: IANADD.)
>
> Which does only say:
> | To ensure that vital configurable values are always avai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joe Nahmias) writes:
> Hello Chirag,
>
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 05:23:14PM +0530, Chirag Kantharia wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I've uploaded netdump package to mentors.debian.net and am seeking for
>> a sponsor for this package.
>
> I took a look at your package, a few issues:
>
> 0)
Some informations :
o package is now lintian clean
o it builds in pbuilder (well, it was not that difficult ;p)
o should be policy compliant (not 100% sure though)
o ITP is : http://bugs.debian.org/258356
o and btw my work is here :
http://amaretto.inria.fr:8080/~mc/flyspray/
* Pac
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 13 July 2004 01:46 pm, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > And while I'm at it: the behaviour change is not really dangerous, but
> > can cause people to get more spam. (Background: post
Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
> On Thursday 15 July 2004 15.15, Martin Dickopp wrote:
> > Sebastian Henschel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [/etc/default]
> > See Policy 9.3.2. (Disclaimer: IANADD.)
>
> Which does only say:
> | To ensure that vital configurable values are always avai
Some informations :
o package is now lintian clean
o it builds in pbuilder (well, it was not that difficult ;p)
o should be policy compliant (not 100% sure though)
o ITP is : http://bugs.debian.org/258356
o and btw my work is here :
http://amaretto.inria.fr:8080/~mc/flyspray/
* Pac
On 2004-07-15 Sebastian Henschel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> in the last couple of months, i realized that more and more packages
> are using a file in /etc/default/ for the configuration of their
> init-scripts.
> i searched in debian-devel and debian-mentors, looked into the policy
> 10.7 and as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 13 July 2004 01:46 pm, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > And while I'm at it: the behaviour change is not really dangerous, but
> > can cause people to get more spam. (Background: post
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 05:27:49PM +0200, Robert Lemmen wrote:
> hi everyone,
>
> i am looking for a sponsor for secure-delete: tools to wipe files, free
> disk space, swap and memory
oh come one everybody! what the hell is wrong with this package that
nobody wants to sponsor it?
it's really in
On Thursday 15 July 2004 15.15, Martin Dickopp wrote:
> Sebastian Henschel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[/etc/default]
> See Policy 9.3.2. (Disclaimer: IANADD.)
Which does only say:
| To ensure that vital configurable values are always available, the
| init.d script should set default values for e
Sebastian Henschel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> in the last couple of months, i realized that more and more packages
> are using a file in /etc/default/ for the configuration of their
> init-scripts.
> i searched in debian-devel and debian-mentors, looked into the policy
> 10.7 and asked a mainta
Am Do, den 15.07.2004 schrieb Sebastian Henschel um 14:45:
> howdy folks...
>
> in the last couple of months, i realized that more and more packages
> are using a file in /etc/default/ for the configuration of their
> init-scripts.
> i searched in debian-devel and debian-mentors, looked into the p
howdy folks...
in the last couple of months, i realized that more and more packages
are using a file in /etc/default/ for the configuration of their
init-scripts.
i searched in debian-devel and debian-mentors, looked into the policy
10.7 and asked a maintainer of such a package, but did not find a
On 2004-07-15 Sebastian Henschel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> in the last couple of months, i realized that more and more packages
> are using a file in /etc/default/ for the configuration of their
> init-scripts.
> i searched in debian-devel and debian-mentors, looked into the policy
> 10.7 and as
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 05:27:49PM +0200, Robert Lemmen wrote:
> hi everyone,
>
> i am looking for a sponsor for secure-delete: tools to wipe files, free
> disk space, swap and memory
oh come one everybody! what the hell is wrong with this package that
nobody wants to sponsor it?
it's really in
On Thursday 15 July 2004 15.15, Martin Dickopp wrote:
> Sebastian Henschel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[/etc/default]
> See Policy 9.3.2. (Disclaimer: IANADD.)
Which does only say:
| To ensure that vital configurable values are always available, the
| init.d script should set default values for e
Sebastian Henschel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> in the last couple of months, i realized that more and more packages
> are using a file in /etc/default/ for the configuration of their
> init-scripts.
> i searched in debian-devel and debian-mentors, looked into the policy
> 10.7 and asked a mainta
Am Do, den 15.07.2004 schrieb Sebastian Henschel um 14:45:
> howdy folks...
>
> in the last couple of months, i realized that more and more packages
> are using a file in /etc/default/ for the configuration of their
> init-scripts.
> i searched in debian-devel and debian-mentors, looked into the p
howdy folks...
in the last couple of months, i realized that more and more packages
are using a file in /etc/default/ for the configuration of their
init-scripts.
i searched in debian-devel and debian-mentors, looked into the policy
10.7 and asked a maintainer of such a package, but did not find a
Hi,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am packaging a package - A - which conflicts with only some files in
> another package - B - (A depends on the rest of B's files). If A also
> contained the files in B with which it conflicts, I think I would tag A
> Replaces: B and be done; but A doesn't contai
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:21:59PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am packaging a package - A - which conflicts with only some files in
> another package - B - (A depends on the rest of B's files). If A also
> contained the files in B with which it conflicts, I think I would tag A
> Replaces
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:21:59PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am packaging a package - A - which conflicts with only some files in
> another package - B - (A depends on the rest of B's files). If A also
> contained the files in B with which it conflicts, I think I would tag A
> Replaces
I am packaging a package - A - which conflicts with only some files in
another package - B - (A depends on the rest of B's files). If A also
contained the files in B with which it conflicts, I think I would tag A
Replaces: B and be done; but A doesn't contain these files, it simply
conflicts wi
Hi,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am packaging a package - A - which conflicts with only some files in
> another package - B - (A depends on the rest of B's files). If A also
> contained the files in B with which it conflicts, I think I would tag A
> Replaces: B and be done; but A doesn't contai
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:21:59PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am packaging a package - A - which conflicts with only some files in
> another package - B - (A depends on the rest of B's files). If A also
> contained the files in B with which it conflicts, I think I would tag A
> Replaces
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:21:59PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am packaging a package - A - which conflicts with only some files in
> another package - B - (A depends on the rest of B's files). If A also
> contained the files in B with which it conflicts, I think I would tag A
> Replaces
27 matches
Mail list logo
