"Davide G. M. Salvetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just asking, wouldn't be better to provide a unified interface, where your
> scripts decide if install/add-on-package should be called in foreground or
> background (or, maybe, pass an argument to install/add-on-package
> suggesting what to do)
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> IMO, shared libraries should use `-lsomelib' for each library they directly
> depend on, not just `-lc'. For example, the LessTif shared library depends
> directly on Xt, Xext, X11 (and through them on other X libs). I have linked
> it "-lXt -lXext -l
> "RB" == Rob Browning.
RB> "Davide G. M. Salvetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> BTW, I don't remember if we have ever discussed about it, but I also
>> think add-on packages should byte-compile in background [1], since it
>> could be a quiet long job. They should also provide a log.
>>
>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I think it is a good idea.
However, its implementation would be nearly equivalent to make longer the
one-month period a closed bug is still kept in the bug database.
If I remember well, the problem for this was disk space, so this may boil
down to ask ourselves
On Thu, Jan 22, 1998 at 05:20:49PM +0100, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> * 7: Linking shared libraries with -lc
> approved
> - fix text to state that shared libs are always linked dynamically against
> each other, but dependency information is only included if `-lc' is used
Looking back through the ar
Hi,
>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian> Arrigo Triulzi writes ("Re: Bug#7903 acknowledged by developer
Ian> (sendmail+deliver+mailx behaviour on delivering local mail)"):
>> Ahem, surely this is a joke! Shouldn't bugs be fixed in stable
>> rather than unstable? It has been ope
Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 15 Jan 1998, Guy Maor wrote:
> > For programs which can't reload, I assume it would be ok to just let *
> > handle it?
>
> Sorry, but I don't get your point. What is `*' ??
case "$1" in
start) start-stop-daemon ... ;;
stop) start-stop-daemon
"Davide G. M. Salvetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> BTW, I don't remember if we have ever discussed about it, but I also think
> add-on packages should byte-compile in background [1], since it could be a
> quiet long job. They should also provide a log.
>
> [1]: It would be nice if the user co
8 matches
Mail list logo
