Christian Schwarz wrote:
>
> Now we are starting again from the beginning...
>
> I asked for this (making tetex* predepend on dpkg-perl) but Ian
> Jackson objected since this is too risky (check out debian-devel).
done.
Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> So you should not make tetex's preinst depend on dpk
[I CC this reply to the debian-policy mailing list. On that list there is
currently a discussion on this topic. Please send any replies to
debian-policy.]
On Fri, 19 Sep 1997, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Aargh, I'd kind of hoped that the idea of running files in
> /var/lib/dpkg/info would die by itself
On 19 Sep 1997, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I find the Packaging manual to be ambiguous as far as this
> issue is concerned. I am including all that I thought was relevant to
> the issue below. I do not see a prohibition on additional information
> that may help the user choose pac
Hi,
I find the Packaging manual to be ambiguous as far as this
issue is concerned. I am including all that I thought was relevant to
the issue below. I do not see a prohibition on additional information
that may help the user choose packages (quite the contrary).
It has been ar
On Fri, 19 Sep 1997, joost witteveen wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Sep 1997, J.H.M. Dassen wrote:
> >
> > > Having reread the policy manual, I've come to the conclusion that my
> > > pstotext package probably should go into main instead of non-free.
> > >
> > > pstotext requires ghostscript 3.33 or late
[I removed the CC to the debian-devel list, since this is policy
specific.]
On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Christian Lynbech wrote:
> > "Santiago" == Santiago Vila Doncel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Santiago> I have already submitted a bug against dpkg because of this
> Santiago> (GNU packages li
Hi!
On 19 Sep 1997, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>[Moving this over to policy]
Thanks!
> I think I agree with Anthony here; ultimately, current policy
> gives the maintainer a great deal of leeway in deciding what is or
> is not acceptable for the description; and far from fe
On Sep 19, Rob Browning wrote
> > Then, I assume Ray suggests this:
> >
> > Depends: gs
> > Suggests: gs-aladdin (>= 3.51) | gs (>= 3.51)
> >
> > Is it now OK? I mean, the package apparently is usefull with just
> > gs-3.33. So cannot it go in main?
>
> Typo? Didn't you mean
>
> Depends: gs
On Sep 19, Christian Schwarz wrote
> > Depends: gs
> > Recommends: gs-aladdin (>= 3.51) | gs (>= 3.51)
> > (note: there is no gs >= 3.51 yet, but since gs-aladdin 5 is available
> > upstream, I expect some non-free gs version will be available under the
> > GPL soon).
>
> Sorry, but if nei
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (joost witteveen) writes:
> Then, I assume Ray suggests this:
>
> Depends: gs
> Suggests: gs-aladdin (>= 3.51) | gs (>= 3.51)
>
> Is it now OK?
> I mean, the package apparently is usefull with just gs-3.33.
> So cannot it go in main?
Typo? Didn't you mean
Depends: gs
Sugge
> On Fri, 19 Sep 1997, J.H.M. Dassen wrote:
>
> > Having reread the policy manual, I've come to the conclusion that my
> > pstotext package probably should go into main instead of non-free.
> >
> > pstotext requires ghostscript 3.33 or later to work for PostScript properly,
> > and 3.51 or later
On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Joey Hess wrote:
> Christian Schwarz wrote:
> > Do you see an easy way to write such a debstd replacement which just
> > prints the commands to stdout? I had a short look at debstd but I don't
> > see an easy solution right now.
>
> Have you tried running "sh -v /usr/bin/debs
On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Christian Schwarz wrote:
>
> >As it was not really a bug, I didn't report a bug report--but you're
> >right, I probably should have done this either way.
> >
> >If I recall right, the problem was that debstd inserted calls to
>
On Fri, 19 Sep 1997, J.H.M. Dassen wrote:
> Having reread the policy manual, I've come to the conclusion that my
> pstotext package probably should go into main instead of non-free.
>
> pstotext requires ghostscript 3.33 or later to work for PostScript properly,
> and 3.51 or later to work for PD
On Fri, 19 Sep 1997, Fabrizio Polacco wrote:
> Christian Schwarz wrote:
> >
> > For example, we are still looking for a solution with the tetex-*
> > postinst script. This script could be made much faster by using a
> > simple Perl script that uses the dpkg-perl modules. Unless these
> > modules
Having reread the policy manual, I've come to the conclusion that my
pstotext package probably should go into main instead of non-free.
pstotext requires ghostscript 3.33 or later to work for PostScript properly,
and 3.51 or later to work for PDF properly. As 3.33 is in main, I think it
can go int
Christian Schwarz wrote:
>
> For example, we are still looking for a solution with the tetex-*
> postinst script. This script could be made much faster by using a
> simple Perl script that uses the dpkg-perl modules. Unless these
> modules are included in in perl-base we have to include them in
>
Hi,
[Moving this over to policy]
I think I agree with Anthony here; ultimately, current policy
gives the maintainer a great deal of leeway in deciding what is or
is not acceptable for the description; and far from feeling that
authour information is useless, I think we should be
On Wed, 17 Sep 1997, Fabrizio Polacco wrote:
> Christian Schwarz wrote:
> >
> > I still don't understand the reason (is this just me? how do the
> > others think about this?). If a package installs /usr/bin/foo, why
> > can't this program be used in the "postinst" script?
> >
>
> Well, probably
On Tue, 16 Sep 1997, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> : I must say I like debmake for small packaging up small and easy packages.
>
> : However, I ran into big problems with using debstd in the large and
> : complicated mysql package. (For example, debstd inserts commands in the
> : postinst script whi
Christian Schwarz wrote:
> Do you see an easy way to write such a debstd replacement which just
> prints the commands to stdout? I had a short look at debstd but I don't
> see an easy solution right now.
Have you tried running "sh -v /usr/bin/debstd" ? That should output what
it's doing.
--
see
On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Christian Schwarz wrote:
>As it was not really a bug, I didn't report a bug report--but you're
>right, I probably should have done this either way.
>
>If I recall right, the problem was that debstd inserted calls to
>"update-rc.d" and "/etc/init.d/foo start" to the postinst sc
22 matches
Mail list logo
