/usr/share/ and /usr/local/share/

1997-09-30 Thread Yann Dirson
FSSTND 1.2 defines the /usr/share/ directory, but not anything like /usr/local/share/. Does anybody knows whether it's normal ? IMHO, just as stuff in /usr can install files in /usr/lib/ and /usr/share/, stuff in /usr/local/ should be allowed to install files both in /usr/local/lib/ (as is autho

Re: perl-base

1997-09-30 Thread Guy Maor
Scott Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Perl will suppliment perl-base, not replace it (if I've gotten this > correct). You have. Guy

Re: perl-base

1997-09-30 Thread Scott Ellis
On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, Andreas Jellinghaus wrote: > > /usr/bin/perl shall thus belong to an essential package. > > can you replace essential packages with non essential ones ? > i'm not sure, at least removing essential is not possible without a > force option. Perl will suppliment perl-base, n

A required change? Re: [linux-security] Re: kerneld and module security

1997-09-30 Thread Dave Cinege
On Mon, 29 Sep 1997 15:05:20 -0400 (EDT), Patrick Cantwell wrote: Seems like a serious hole to me. I just changed the permissions on my box, and think it it warrants debian to change policy regarding permissions and modules. >On Sun, 28 Sep 1997, Aleph One wrote: > >(forwarded from linux-securit

Re: perl-base

1997-09-30 Thread Andreas Jellinghaus
> /usr/bin/perl shall thus belong to an essential package. can you replace essential packages with non essential ones ? i'm not sure, at least removing essential is not possible without a force option. andreas

Re: perl-base

1997-09-30 Thread Manoj Srivastava
Hi, >>"Juan" == Juan Cespedes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Juan> [1 ] On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, Jim Pick Juan> wrote: Juan> But `perl' isn't essential. It isn't even required. Its Juan> priority is just `important' (at least version 5.004.02-1). Umm, perl-base (to be issued with the next upg