This is sent to both -policy and -mentors, as it's both a proposal and
a request for clarification/help. Please Cc me as I'm only subscribed
to -mentors.
I am in the process of fixing Mailman, which I've just adopted. There
is this bug, #61761 (http://bugs.debian.org/61761 ), where the
submitte
On Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 08:57:44PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 01:08:49PM -0500, Bob Hilliard wrote:
> > If I fix a bug in my package, and send the patch upstream, should
> > the bug be marked "forwarded", or should "forwarded" be reserved for
> > bugs that are waiting
En réponse à Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> localhost. The submitter proposes that they should be put in,
> /var/www/mailman-images or something like that.
I'm the maintainer of the sympa mailing list manager.
I've stored the images used by the web frontend (wwsympa) in
/usr/share/sy
viewmol, a molecular modelling program I'm packaging, makes use of a number
of supplementary binary files and scripts to read atomic coordinates from a
range of different file formats.
By default these utilities are kept in a viewmol-specific directory
(/usr/local/lib/viewmol, which I'll change to
* Jérôme Marant
| En réponse à Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
|
| >
| > localhost. The submitter proposes that they should be put in,
| > /var/www/mailman-images or something like that.
|
| I'm the maintainer of the sympa mailing list manager.
| I've stored the images used by the web f
On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 12:14:58AM +1100, Drew Parsons wrote:
> By default these utilities are kept in a viewmol-specific directory
> (/usr/local/lib/viewmol, which I'll change to /usr/share/viewmol), where
> viewmol knows to find them, their position being defined by the config file
> viewmolrc.
>
On Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 04:18:09AM -1000, Brian Russo wrote:
> >
> > Should I therefore keep these supplementary utilities in the viewmol
> > directory, or should they instead be moved to /usr/bin?
>
> if they're binaries that are typically wrapped or otherwise not
> typically invoked directly by
On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 02:05:16AM +1100, Drew Parsons wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 04:18:09AM -1000, Brian Russo wrote:
> > >
> > > Should I therefore keep these supplementary utilities in the viewmol
> > > directory, or should they instead be moved to /usr/bin?
> >
> > if they're binaries t
En réponse à Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> | I'm the maintainer of the sympa mailing list manager.
> | I've stored the images used by the web frontend (wwsympa) in
> | /usr/share/sympa/icons.
> |
> | /usr/share/ is used by many (web) applications for
> | that purpose.
>
> How do you se
On Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 11:52:41AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> However, I'd like to put images in something like /usr/share/web-images,
> since I _might_ end up cluttering around and overwriting files which I
> shouldn't, by placing the images in /var/www/mailman-images. Also, it looks
> mess
On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 12:14:58AM +1100, Drew Parsons wrote:
> viewmol, a molecular modelling program I'm packaging, makes use of a number
> of supplementary binary files and scripts to read atomic coordinates from a
> range of different file formats.
>
> By default these utilities are kept in a
* Jérôme Marant
| With sympa, you just have to give the web alias for accessing
| images.
So the admin is responsible for setting this up himself? I don't want
to mess around with possibly-changing syntaxes in the different
httpds' configuration files.
--
Tollef Fog Heen
Unix _IS_ user f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> I like this idea. /usr/share/doc is really not the right place for images,
> and placing them there simply because it happens to be web-accessible is an
> unnecessary kludge. Slightly less unappetizing is to place the images in
> /usr/share/ and sy
On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 11:25:43AM +1300, Corrin Lakeland wrote:
> > I like this idea. /usr/share/doc is really not the right place for images,
> > and placing them there simply because it happens to be web-accessible is an
> > unnecessary kludge. Slightly less unappetizing is to place the image
This is sent to both -policy and -mentors, as it's both a proposal and
a request for clarification/help. Please Cc me as I'm only subscribed
to -mentors.
I am in the process of fixing Mailman, which I've just adopted. There
is this bug, #61761 (http://bugs.debian.org/61761 ), where the
submitt
On Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 08:57:44PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 01:08:49PM -0500, Bob Hilliard wrote:
> > If I fix a bug in my package, and send the patch upstream, should
> > the bug be marked "forwarded", or should "forwarded" be reserved for
> > bugs that are waiting
En réponse à Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> localhost. The submitter proposes that they should be put in,
> /var/www/mailman-images or something like that.
I'm the maintainer of the sympa mailing list manager.
I've stored the images used by the web frontend (wwsympa) in
/usr/share/s
viewmol, a molecular modelling program I'm packaging, makes use of a number
of supplementary binary files and scripts to read atomic coordinates from a
range of different file formats.
By default these utilities are kept in a viewmol-specific directory
(/usr/local/lib/viewmol, which I'll change t
* Jérôme Marant
| En réponse à Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
|
| >
| > localhost. The submitter proposes that they should be put in,
| > /var/www/mailman-images or something like that.
|
| I'm the maintainer of the sympa mailing list manager.
| I've stored the images used by the web
On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 12:14:58AM +1100, Drew Parsons wrote:
> By default these utilities are kept in a viewmol-specific directory
> (/usr/local/lib/viewmol, which I'll change to /usr/share/viewmol), where
> viewmol knows to find them, their position being defined by the config file
> viewmolrc.
On Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 04:18:09AM -1000, Brian Russo wrote:
> >
> > Should I therefore keep these supplementary utilities in the viewmol
> > directory, or should they instead be moved to /usr/bin?
>
> if they're binaries that are typically wrapped or otherwise not
> typically invoked directly b
On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 02:05:16AM +1100, Drew Parsons wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 04:18:09AM -1000, Brian Russo wrote:
> > >
> > > Should I therefore keep these supplementary utilities in the viewmol
> > > directory, or should they instead be moved to /usr/bin?
> >
> > if they're binaries
En réponse à Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> | I'm the maintainer of the sympa mailing list manager.
> | I've stored the images used by the web frontend (wwsympa) in
> | /usr/share/sympa/icons.
> |
> | /usr/share/ is used by many (web) applications for
> | that purpose.
>
> How do you s
On Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 11:52:41AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> However, I'd like to put images in something like /usr/share/web-images,
> since I _might_ end up cluttering around and overwriting files which I
> shouldn't, by placing the images in /var/www/mailman-images. Also, it looks
> mes
On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 12:14:58AM +1100, Drew Parsons wrote:
> viewmol, a molecular modelling program I'm packaging, makes use of a number
> of supplementary binary files and scripts to read atomic coordinates from a
> range of different file formats.
>
> By default these utilities are kept in
* Jérôme Marant
| With sympa, you just have to give the web alias for accessing
| images.
So the admin is responsible for setting this up himself? I don't want
to mess around with possibly-changing syntaxes in the different
httpds' configuration files.
--
Tollef Fog Heen
Unix _IS_ user
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> I like this idea. /usr/share/doc is really not the right place for images,
> and placing them there simply because it happens to be web-accessible is an
> unnecessary kludge. Slightly less unappetizing is to place the images in
> /usr/share/ and s
On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 11:25:43AM +1300, Corrin Lakeland wrote:
> > I like this idea. /usr/share/doc is really not the right place for images,
> > and placing them there simply because it happens to be web-accessible is an
> > unnecessary kludge. Slightly less unappetizing is to place the imag
28 matches
Mail list logo
