Re: conventions for packaging (ie: docs)

1998-03-01 Thread Karl M. Hegbloom
> "Adam" == Adam P Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Adam> Mind you, I think splitting docs is generally a good idea, I'd often like to install just the docs so I can find out what something is, and read about it a little to decide whether I need it or not.

Re: conventions for packaging (ie: docs)

1998-02-22 Thread Remco Blaakmeer
On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, Adam P. Harris wrote: > [You (Bill Leach)] > >Has the idea been discussed about seperating out more of the > >documentation packages from the executable packages? > > > >It has seemed to me that it would be a great benefit to many sysadms if > >most packages like smail, sendma

Re: conventions for packaging (ie: docs)

1998-02-20 Thread Bill Leach
Both of the suggested reasons exist for my situation (I have machines that can't really afford the space and I have machines that could 'serve' the documentation for software that they don't have installed). OTOH, I also appreciate the potential problems and the general increase in complexity that

Re: conventions for packaging (ie: docs)

1998-02-20 Thread Adam P. Harris
[You (Bill Leach)] >Has the idea been discussed about seperating out more of the >documentation packages from the executable packages? > >It has seemed to me that it would be a great benefit to many sysadms if >most packages like smail, sendmail, qmail, apache, etc. had their >documentation in sep

Re: conventions for packaging.

1998-02-20 Thread Anand Kumria
On Sat, 21 Feb 1998, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > on a hamm system? I currently only have a bo system, should I apply for an > > account on master and do the package generate their? (is it a hamm system) > > Or should I wait until boot disks for hamm become available? Gawk. I meant of course "do the

Re: conventions for packaging.

1998-02-20 Thread Hamish Moffatt
On Sat, Feb 21, 1998 at 12:08:45AM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote: > On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, Joey Hess wrote: > Okay, I've managed to build my .deb and the related source packages. > Something that I am confused about is the original source tar.gz - I > initalliy had mtr-0.14.orig.tar.gz (which extracts in

Re: conventions for packaging.

1998-02-20 Thread Anand Kumria
On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, Joey Hess wrote: > Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > Yes that sounds useful. I know that your pdmenu supports popping > > up a box to ask for parameters; I would assume that there's nothing > > in the Debian menu system to tell the menu system to do this though > > because it would no

Re: conventions for packaging.

1998-02-20 Thread Joey Hess
Hamish Moffatt wrote: > Yes that sounds useful. I know that your pdmenu supports popping > up a box to ask for parameters; I would assume that there's nothing > in the Debian menu system to tell the menu system to do this though > because it would not be supported by the various X window managers >

Re: conventions for packaging.

1998-02-20 Thread Hamish Moffatt
On Fri, Feb 20, 1998 at 12:06:32AM -0800, Joey Hess wrote: > The only problem is, if you just run mtr with no parameters, you don't get > the window at all. So to appear on the menu system, you'd need something > like "mtr localhost", which pops up a useless mtr to localhost, but you can > then cha

Re: conventions for packaging.

1998-02-20 Thread Joey Hess
Hamish Moffatt wrote: > Is this for the menu system? This sort of tool tends to be command line > driven (is mtr?); do these really belong in the menu system? None of > my command line driven stuff have menu files (guavac, atp, ...) The interesting thing about mtr is that the X interface to it cou

Re: conventions for packaging (ie: docs)

1998-02-20 Thread Bill Leach
Has the idea been discussed about seperating out more of the documentation packages from the executable packages? It has seemed to me that it would be a great benefit to many sysadms if most packages like smail, sendmail, qmail, apache, etc. had their documentation in seperate packages that were s

Re: conventions for packaging.

1998-02-20 Thread Hamish Moffatt
On Thu, Feb 19, 1998 at 07:07:17PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: > > Also what is the best place to put this kind of program? Apps/System, > > Apps/Network or Apps/Misc? > I'd suggest Apps/Network Is this for the menu system? This sort of tool tends to be command line driven (is mtr?); do these rea

Re: conventions for packaging.

1998-02-19 Thread Joey Hess
Anand Kumria wrote: > - should it be installed in /usr/sbin (it is a set-uid network diag > program) Probably, I'm not 100% sure. > - is the man page regarded as architecture independant? Well, it is architecture independant, but we don't split out seperate packages for things like a single man

Re: conventions for packaging.

1998-02-19 Thread Scott Ellis
On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, Anand Kumria wrote: > I've decided to try my hand at being a debian developer; and have picked > mtr (from the orphaned list) as something to try. Some questions: > > - - should it be installed in /usr/sbin (it is a set-uid network diag > program) I've never seen the point i

Re: conventions for packaging.

1998-02-19 Thread Martin Schulze
On Fri, Feb 20, 1998 at 03:52:56AM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote: > I've decided to try my hand at being a debian developer; and have picked > mtr (from the orphaned list) as something to try. Some questions: > > - - should it be installed in /usr/sbin (it is a set-uid network diag > program) Is it

conventions for packaging.

1998-02-19 Thread Anand Kumria
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- I've decided to try my hand at being a debian developer; and have picked mtr (from the orphaned list) as something to try. Some questions: - - should it be installed in /usr/sbin (it is a set-uid network diag program) - - is the man page regarded as architectur