On Mon, Feb 02, 1998 at 01:59:00PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> Furthermore, noone has yet to my knowledge come up with a good
> argument as to why we should distribute source code in .deb files,
Ahem, I date to say I did.
Nothing related to kernel or source compiling, it's source code added in
On Mon, Feb 02, 1998 at 06:34:57PM +0100, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> > I would prefer `close', `closes' OR `closed' (but obviously only one
>
> Anyways, we had this discussion a few times already. As I remember from
> last time, you (Ian) were the only o
On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Santiago Vila wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Christian Schwarz wrote:
>
> > Yes. Beta software is ok for "unstable". Only "critical" software (i.e.,
> > programs that are likely to trash your filesystem) should go into
> > "experimental".
On Sat, Jan 31, 1998 at 12:09:10AM +0100, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> On 30 Jan 1998, James Troup wrote:
>
> > Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > As long as the binary packages `Depend:' (or `Recommend:') the
> > > package containing /usr/doc/source-package and they install a
> If beta is not ok for stable, then it is not ok for unstable either,
> because unstable may become frozen and later unstable at any time.
stable, of course.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, I wrote:
> > ``[...] It is almost certain that any file in /etc that is in your
> > package's filesystem archive should be listed in dpkg's conffiles control
> > area file. (See the Debian Packaging Manual).
>
> It is almost certain that any
Hi,
>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
(supercite redone)
Ian> Manoj (Supercite undone):
Ian> Christian Schwarz:
Christian> IMHO, /usr/local/src is the place for the sysadmin,
Christian> /usr/src is the place for packages.
Manoj> Not only is this a standard that we supposedly fo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> Yes. Beta software is ok for "unstable". Only "critical" software (i.e.,
> programs that are likely to trash your filesystem) should go into
> "experimental".
I disagree here.
If beta is not ok for stable, then i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> Is the following solution correct?
>
> 1. The `conffile' is _not_ tagged as conffile and _not_ included in the
> package tree,
>
> 2. it's created in the postinst script if that file does not already
> exist,
>
>
> The point of choosing `fixes' was that it's probably much easier to
> understand for non-Debian people: bugs can only be `fixed' (not `closed')
> but bug reports need to be `closed' :-)
Yes, but it's possible to "close" the bug report without having fixed the
"bug" reported. An example would
On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Christian Schwarz:
> >* Changed `closes' and `closed' term into `fixes'
> >
> > (This has been suggested by a few people. Please tell me if `closes'
> > would still be preferred.)
>
> I would prefer `close', `closes' OR `closed' (but obvious
On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Brian White:
> [ Kai: ]
> > > We should also correct the policy to say that _no_ package should touch
> > > _any_ config file from a script. The problem caused that way isn't related
> > > to which package script and config file belong to.
> >
> > While a
On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Christian:
> > It would be good if the people who want our policy to be changed in
> > this respect (Ian?) to tell us their opinion. I want to set up the DB
> > ASAP and this is the only open question that's left...
>
> Amongst addresses that I'm involved
On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I've just received a bug report about this discussion, wherein the
> proposed text is as shown here:
[snip]
> > especially for Debian) should always use the `-MM-DD' format.
>
> I think that we should use this text with the following modifications:
>
I've just caught up on debian-policy.
I'd just like to say that I'm very pleased with the job that Christian
has been doing here recently, and also very pleased with Guy's very
helpful input.
Keep up the good work.
Ian.
Christian:
> It would be good if the people who want our policy to be changed in
> this respect (Ian?) to tell us their opinion. I want to set up the DB
> ASAP and this is the only open question that's left...
Amongst addresses that I'm involved with which Debian also has to deal
with:
For lout,
Firstly, I'd like to apologise for my rather intemperate message on
this subject last week. I'll post more later, but for now I'd just
like to say two things:
Firstly, as I understood it, current policy was that it was nice but
not required for maintainers to have exactly one address. This seems
Christian:
> Since I haven't seen any objections on implementing the new severity
> level "fixed", I'll file a wishlist bug report against bugs.debian.org
> to get it implemented ASAP.
Right. Can we make sure we have appropriate text in the manuals to
say how and when to use it ? At the moment I
Manoj (Supercite undone):
> Christian Schwarz:
> > IMHO, /usr/local/src is the place for the sysadmin,
> > /usr/src is the place for packages.
>
> Not only is this a standard that we supposedly follow, it is
> also existing practice, as demonstrated by the kernel-* packages and
> pcmcia-
Guy Maor:
Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > However, managing /bin/sh through alternatives sounds like a good
> > idea to
> > me.
>
> Yes. I already have a bug report to do this. Waiting until just
> after hamm is released is probably safest.
Be careful; I'm not sure whether upd
Christian Schwarz:
>* Changed `closes' and `closed' term into `fixes'
>
> (This has been suggested by a few people. Please tell me if `closes'
> would still be preferred.)
I would prefer `close', `closes' OR `closed' (but obviously only one
of them). This is the term used by the bu
Brian White:
[ Kai: ]
> > We should also correct the policy to say that _no_ package should touch
> > _any_ config file from a script. The problem caused that way isn't related
> > to which package script and config file belong to.
>
> While a good general rule, I think it would be a mistake to ma
I've just received a bug report about this discussion, wherein the
proposed text is as shown here:
> In general, Debian packages should use the same version numbers as the
> upstream sources.
>
> However, in some cases where the upstream version number is based on a
> date (i.e., a development `s
> "Rob" == Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Note that this indicates that in these cases it's up to the
> maintainer to determine when performance is an issue. For
> example, if there's only one .el file, and it just contains
> (setq load-path (cons "/some/load/di
On Sat, 31 Jan 1998, Yann Dirson wrote:
[snip]
> > the FHS in Debian 2.1 (at least partially--see below) but stay with FSSTND
> > for Debian 2.0. (The changes would be too much to get hamm out in time.)
>
> implementing FHS would take time, but recommending /usr/share, with
> compat links, for
25 matches
Mail list logo
