On Sun, Dec 21 1997 13:33 +0200 Kai Henningsen writes:
> You _do_ know that there's a free PGP version, right? (The "u[i[n]]"
> series.) See the international PGP home page. It's derived from very early
> PGP versions that were still free. Incidentally, the guy who did the last
> hacks on it li
On Mon, 22 Dec 1997, Santiago Vila wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> Kai, the discussion already ended (I think), but now that you ask, I
> would like to answer:
(As you can see, the discussion really ended :-)
> > Policy says so because they are useful to modify. What is so hard
Please stop this discussion now.
Everyone has the right to ask whether a certain aspect of our policy is
reasonable or not. That's an important part of keeping the high quality of
our distribution.
The current discussion made it very clear to me that we have good reasons
for making every /etc/in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Kai, the discussion already ended (I think), but now that you ask, I
would like to answer:
> Policy says so because they are useful to modify. What is so hard to
> understand about this?
I failed to see why some people can say they are *all* useful to modify
wi
[CC'ing debian-policy]
"Jim" == Jim Pick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>[I wrote]
>> Yes, it is discussed in the Debian Packaging Manual, section 12.
>> See: /usr/doc/dpkg/packaging.html/ch-sharedlibs.html
>> You should just go ahead and file bugs against packages which don't
>> include the .so li
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hamish Moffatt) wrote on 20.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> of non-official sites. Does dpkg check the MD5sum with
> the one in the Packages file or in the archive itself?
I think dpkg-mountable does. At least it always tells me which packages
pass a MD5 check before even st
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Ellis) wrote on 19.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> And the instant someone provides us with free software equivilant to ssh
> or pgp, we'll move to use it. We need the functionality, unfortunatly
> sometimes you have to use what you can get.
You _do_ know that there's a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Santiago Vila) wrote on 20.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Could somebody please explain the rationale for having *all*
> /etc/init.d/* scripts as conffiles?
And you were given that rationale. Repeatedly.
> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 15:23:49 +0100
> From: Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PR
8 matches
Mail list logo
