Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One only needs look at the bug list for one of the peioneering
> multi-maintainer packages (namely; dpkg) to think that possibly when
> a goup is responsible for a package, in reality no one is
> responsible for it.
This is IMHO a trite argument as i
I think that this proposed policy is too strict. It forbids several
commands already in widespread use on the system, and it forbids
program names from being a single (English?) word, which is
unreasonable, in my opinion.
Some command names that this policy forbids:
(Section 1) GnomeScott Mail M
Ian Jackson wrote:
> In fact, it is _configuration files_ and not just conffiles which are
> (or should be) removed on purge.
You're right.
> > 4.2
> >
> > The configuration files `/etc/services', `/etc/protocols', and
> > `/etc/rpc' are managed by the netbase package and may not be m
I propose the following policy:
No package shall create without approval any command name (or
corresponding manpage):
1. not matching the regexp ^[a-z0-9]..
2. matching ^... if it creates more than two such
3. matching [^-+._,a-z0-9], or
4. which is a single common dictionary word
or any directo
Joey Hess writes, suggesting some places where he feels `configuration
file' should read `conffile':
> 3.4.2:
>
> These scripts should not fail obscurely when the configuration files
> remain but the package has been removed, as the default in dpkg is to
> leave configuration files
Hi,
I have only passing interest in this topic, but I wanted to
point out that on *can* hold people resposible for things even i a
volunteer project (I most definitely am responsible for my packages),
we merely can not discipline them for failing to meet their
responsibilities, apart f
Hi,
>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian> I have a compromise proposal that I think will satisfy the needs
Ian> of both the `keep the kernel sources out of .deb files' and the
Ian> `we must distribute kernel source' people.
[proposal deleted]
Ok. I can do that, if so de
I'm afraid I still want to beat this dead horse.
I think it is a mistake to think that this requirement is even
meaningful. Remember that we are a project of volunteers; things get
done by the people who have time, inclination and (hopefully)
competence to do them.
Requiring that only one perso
I have a compromise proposal that I think will satisfy the needs of
both the `keep the kernel sources out of .deb files' and the `we must
distribute kernel source' people.
The real problem with kernel sources as .deb's is that there is
insufficient flexibility within dpkg for dealing with issues t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 25.02.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>"Christian" == Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Christian> On 25 Feb 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote: [snip]
> >> I would propose that no package keep files in user home directories
> >> as a policy.
Hi,
>>"Jim" == Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jim> As intimated to below, I (who has no official vote :) think that
Jim> debian packages should have enough information in them to allow
Jim> the determination of how much disk space would be used by
Jim> installing, or freed by removing, said pack
As intimated to below, I (who has no official vote :) think that debian
packages should have enough information in them to allow the determination
of how much disk space would be used by installing, or freed by removing,
said package.
To the end that the packages which are selected can all be quer
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> Hi,
>>> "Luiz" == Luiz Otavio L Zorzella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Luiz> I posted this question in debian-user list, and was advised to
Luiz> post in this list, because you have supposedelly just decided to
Luiz> remove from the .deb packages a feature that would allo
Hi,
>>"Luiz" == Luiz Otavio L Zorzella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Luiz> I posted this question in debian-user list, and was advised to
Luiz> post in this list, because you have supposedelly just decided to
Luiz> remove from the .deb packages a feature that would allow this to
Luiz> be accomplishe
I posted this question in debian-user list, and was advised to post in
this list, because you have supposedelly just decided to remove from
the .deb packages a feature that would allow this to be accomplished.
This clue came from Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Please also send a copy of the
On Tue, Mar 03, 1998 at 06:52:24PM -0600, Rob Browning wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Well, nothing really, I guess ... Is it not the case that
> > once you start using an epoch you can never cease? That 1:1.0.0
> > always is greater than 9.0.0? And the next time
On Tue, Mar 03, 1998 at 06:48:28PM +, Enrique Zanardi wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 03, 1998 at 10:52:13AM -0500, Christian Hudon wrote:
> >
> > Ugh. There really should be something in the Policy Manual against using
> > 'pre'. It doesn't seem to be a widely known fact, but according to dpkg:
> >
> >
If this is a 'voting' question or a concenses issue, I too would like to
be 'counted' as for being able to obtain that information from the
package management system.
On Tue, Mar 03, 1998 at 05:15:18PM -0800, Jim wrote:
> >Is there a way to check how much space a package is using? I looked
> >for
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, nothing really, I guess ... Is it not the case that
> once you start using an epoch you can never cease? That 1:1.0.0
> always is greater than 9.0.0? And the next time it happens the epoch
> gets bumped up again.
Yep.
> Hmm, tha
19 matches
Mail list logo
