Re: /etc/{passwd,services} entry for contrib/non-free packages

1999-01-19 Thread Anthony Towns
On Mon, Jan 11, 1999 at 11:03:37PM +0900, Keita Maehara wrote: > The debian-policy says that we shouldn't modify /etc/{passwd,services} > and so on, and it should be managed by base-passwd or netbase. Ummm, if you've got something you want added to /etc/services, please file a wishlist bug against

Re: /etc/{passwd,services} entry for contrib/non-free packages

1999-01-11 Thread Brandon Mitchell
> > Also, notice we have users for apps like qmail (which is not free). > > That's a historical accident. It was done back when DJB was promising > qmail would be free. IIRC, it hasn't been removed, because to do so > would be problematic. Or something. It's not a precedent in any > event. Bu

Re: /etc/{passwd,services} entry for contrib/non-free packages

1999-01-11 Thread James Troup
Shaleh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Also, notice we have users for apps like qmail (which is not free). That's a historical accident. It was done back when DJB was promising qmail would be free. IIRC, it hasn't been removed, because to do so would be problematic. Or something. It's not a pre

RE: /etc/{passwd,services} entry for contrib/non-free packages

1999-01-11 Thread Shaleh
Also, notice we have users for apps like qmail (which is not free).

RE: /etc/{passwd,services} entry for contrib/non-free packages

1999-01-11 Thread Shaleh
> Is this applied to contrib/non-free programs, namely should we have > entries for contrib/non-free programs? There is really no other good way. So I would have to say yes here.

/etc/{passwd,services} entry for contrib/non-free packages

1999-01-11 Thread Keita Maehara
The debian-policy says that we shouldn't modify /etc/{passwd,services} and so on, and it should be managed by base-passwd or netbase. Is this applied to contrib/non-free programs, namely should we have entries for contrib/non-free programs? Thanks, -- Keita Maehara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>