Adam P. Harris writes:
> I still don't agree and I think a uniform administrative GUI would be a
> better solution.
So anyone who can't (or doesn't want to) get X going has to learn to edit
scripts?
> However I encourage you to try to raise a consensus and get your scheme
> approved.
He's got my
Mark Baker writes:
> Speaking as a user, I'd much rather edit a script, where I can see what it's
> doing, than a config file.
No, you are speaking as a programmer. Many users find scripts utterly
incomprehensible.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
On Sun, Mar 08, 1998 at 01:15:42PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Tell me, are you seriously suggesting a novice edit the script
> below?
No, because it's quite a complicated script. On the other hand, if you took
out all the conditionals things would be much simpler: anyone who can't
fi
Hi,
>>"Adam" == Adam P Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Changing permissions is a hack, which is required only because of
>> lack of foresight in the script.
Adam> ?? You call it a hack, I call it the "mode of operations" for
Adam> our existing, consistent, "run-parts" scheme. It harks bac
[You (Manoj Srivastava)]
> Firstly, I think we should minimize the number of conffiles on
> the system. A one line addition to the script shall meke this
> unnecessary.
Ok, well, I see your point. I still don't agree and I think a uniform
administrative GUI would be a better solution. I
Hi,
I run a caching only server. What does a bind reload every
couple of minutes do for me? Why am I doing this?
How can one know all the configurations out there? Why does a
script know more than a human?
Is a one line change too much for the maintainer?
ma
Hi,
>>"Mark" == Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mark> On Sun, Mar 08, 1998 at 12:14:45PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava
Mark> wrote:
>> No progrom should ever send things off machine by itself like
>> this. Mind you, I am not objecting to the ip-up.d scripts: all I am
>> asking for is an ip.conf f
Hi,
>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Santiago> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> file-directly-in-usr-share
Santiago> Hi Christian.
Santiago> It seems this tag is a little bit confusing. Would be
Santiago> possible to find a better one? For example:
Santiago> file-d
On Sun, Mar 08, 1998 at 12:52:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Firstly, I do not disagree with the concept. The concept is
> nice. What I disagree with is the implementation of some of the
> scripts, (slrn does it right, but I would rather look in one file for
> my ip scripts, rather
Hi,
>>"Adam" == Adam P Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
aph> [ -x /usr/bin/distributed-net ] && distributed-net -update
>> Please do not implement the ip-up script exactly like that, since
>> it would suddenly start doing stuff at every net connection on
>> upgrade. Instead, have the script rea
Hi,
>>"Adam" == Adam P Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Adam> "Manoj" == Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> "aph" == aph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> This is not policy, and for good reason: the ip-up.d idea does not
>> seem to have been thought through.
Adam> Your opinion; not
On Sun, Mar 08, 1998 at 12:14:45PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> No progrom should ever send things off machine by itself like
> this. Mind you, I am not objecting to the ip-up.d scripts: all I am
> asking for is an ip.conf file in /etc/ppp where all these scripts
> look for permission
Hi,
>>"Scott" == Scott K Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Scott> On Sun, 8 Mar 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Package: fetchmail Version: 4.3.8-1
>>
>> When I upgraded fetchmail, suddenly fetchmail is called everytime
>> the PPP connection goes up. Short of removing the conffile, there
>> is n
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) wrote on 08.03.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Manoj" == Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Just because I have bind does not mean I want things to be
> > uploaded, or if I have sendmail that I want a queue run when the
> > connection comes up,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yann Dirson) wrote on 07.03.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Manoj Srivastava writes:
> >If packages were to include a du -S output (unlike the du -s
> However, I would strongly advise not to use a standalone file like old
> .du files and .md5sums: the largest part of these f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>file-directly-in-usr-share
Hi Christian.
It seems this tag is a little bit confusing.
Would be possible to find a better one? For example:
file-directly-in-usr-share-not-in-a-usr-share-directory
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset:
Manoj writes:
> I am considering filing important Bugs against packages that
> make my life harder by suddenly doing things at IP-up and down,
> which I did not authorize.
I'm with Manoj on this one. The scripts are fine; I might even use them.
But the default must be *OFF*. No software sho
Adam P. Harris writes:
> >This is not policy, and for good reason: the ip-up.d idea does
> > not seem to have been thought through.
>
> Your opinion; not the opinion of the great mass of people on
> debian-devel, the exim maintainer, the ppp maintainer, the fetchmail
> maintainer, and my
Adam P. Harris writes:
> Hmmm. While I agree with we should probably rip up the control file
> syntax for Debian 2.1, I disagree that we should invent a restrictive,
> proprietary format such as this. Instead, I think we should use a
> controlled SGML/XML DTD and let the control files instanc
I don't know how, but I'm somehow receiving your e-mails and I've never
subsribed to any debian mailing list... any explanation?
Adam P. Harris wrote:
> [You (Manoj Srivastava)]
> >>>"aph" == aph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >aph> To support users on PPP links, I suggest you add a conffile
[You (Manoj Srivastava)]
>>>"aph" == aph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>aph> To support users on PPP links, I suggest you add a conffile shell
>aph> script in /etc/ppp/ip-up.d/distributed-net. A possible version
>aph> of that file:
>
>>> !/bin/sh
>
>aph> [ -x /usr/bin/distributed-net ] && distri
"Manoj" == Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> "aph" == aph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
aph> Package: sendmail Version: N/A
aph> You ought to have a little shell script in
aph> /etc/ppp/ip-up.d/sendmail, make that a conffile. This script
aph> could flush the queue when the link come
"Manoj" == Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, what does the check mean? 66 packages install files into
> /usr/share. It seems OK to put files in there, as long as no program
> ever references thos files directly. Is that right?
Yes, it is literally correct according to FSST
Hi,
>>"aph" == aph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
aph> To support users on PPP links, I suggest you add a conffile shell
aph> script in /etc/ppp/ip-up.d/distributed-net. A possible version
aph> of that file:
>> !/bin/sh
aph> [ -x /usr/bin/distributed-net ] && distributed-net -update
Plea
>>"aph" == aph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
aph> Package: sendmail Version: N/A
aph> You ought to have a little shell script in
aph> /etc/ppp/ip-up.d/sendmail, make that a conffile. This script
aph> could flush the queue when the link comes up. Here's an example:
>> !/bin/sh
aph> [ -x /usr/sb
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And why is that? I mean, I used to dislike epochs too, but the
> more I think about it, the less real reasons I find to abhor it. I
> mean, the epoch is just in the changelog file, isn't it?
Oh, I know. I couldn't care less, but some people
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> From the lintian changes file:
> __
> * Improved `files' check: No package should install files directly into
> /usr/share. New tag:
>file-directly-in-usr-share
>
Hi,
From the lintian changes file:
__
* Improved `files' check: No package should install files directly into
/usr/share. New tag:
file-directly-in-usr-share
Hi,
>>"Rob" == Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Rob> I think I understand, and I think it would be fine. It would
Rob> certainly eliminate the once an epoch, always an epoch problem
Rob> that seems to bother some developers...
And why is that? I mean, I used to dislike epochs too
"Adam P. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It would be theoretically possible, and I think, enormously desirable to
> have some sort of "sub-epoch", say call it 'X-Y:', such that it
> overrides only Y subversions into the upstream version:
> 2.0.8-1 greater-than 1-3:2.0.7-1 greater-than 2
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> /bin/sh, and /bin/sh happens to be an incompatible shell. (ins't rc
> a POSIX shell too?). I think that is a potential point of failure, as
No rc is not a POSIX shell, look:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ rc
; alias a=a
parse error
And posix says you must implement aliases.
--
Hi,
>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Santiago> On 7 Mar 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Anyway, bash is essential, /bin/bash shall always be there, using
>> /bin/bash shall never cause any problems,
Santiago> That argument is also not convincing at all.
Sorry.
32 matches
Mail list logo
