Re: General bug policy

>On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Ian Jackson wrote: > >> 4. Noone but the maintainer of a package (or someone acting on their >> request) should close its bug reports. > >We could be flexible here, in some cases: > >For example, if someone submits a bug, and just after sending the message >he founds that it is

Re: General bug policy

Joost Kooij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > I propose the following rules for dealing with disputes over bug > > reports: > > [snip] > > > 4. Noone but the maintainer of a package (or someone acting on > > their request) should close its bug reports. >

Re: Conffiles and Configuration files (again)

Manoj Srivastava wrote: > You are mistaken. In the message archived at the URL > > Christian states: > > __ > Manoj> why are all conffiles also not co

Re: General bug policy

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Ian Jackson wrote: > 4. Noone but the maintainer of a package (or someone acting on their > request) should close its bug reports. We could be flexible here, in some cases: For example, if someone submits a bug, and just after sending the m

Re: When a bug is a bug?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Ian Jackson wrote: > 2. There are two issues being confused here. One is the behaviour of > with respect to files in the future, and the other is the search path > ordering. There should be two bug reports. Dirk also thinks I'm confusing t

Re: General bug policy

On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Ian Jackson wrote: > I propose the following rules for dealing with disputes over bug > reports: [snip] > 4. Noone but the maintainer of a package (or someone acting on their > request) should close its bug reports. I assume that this applies primarily to cases where there i

Re: Non-free package documentation requirement

Uh, can we have some exception classes to this? For instance, xtrs is in contrib because it requires the ROM images from some very old, long dead computers. Those images were copyrighted by Tandy/Radio Shack and/or Microsoft. Their current legal status may be difficult to determine, and should t

Re: When a bug is a bug?

Santiago Vila writes ("When a bug is a bug?"): > I have a great difficulty in convincing the Debian octave maintainer that > Bug #20561 is a bug. I have explained him in great detail why it is a bug > but he still says it is not and even *refuses* to discuss about it. Dirk (as octave maintainer),

Re: Conffiles and Configuration files (again)

Just to throw a real situation at this, I'm packaging SOCKSv5 stuff. Both the client and server packages use some configuration files in /etc. The situation is this: I can't provide default ones that work since everyones network is different (I can provide example ones with the lines commented ou

Re: Non-free package documentation requirement

On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Shaleh wrote: > Count me 100% in favor. One question -- what about giflib where the > copyright is obvious and will not change. Can this be noted rather than > wasting our time e-mailing them? I expect we can/should probably draft a standard disclaimer similar to: --- snip

Re: Non-free package documentation requirement

Count me 100% in favor. One question -- what about giflib where the copyright is obvious and will not change. Can this be noted rather than wasting our time e-mailing them? -- --- How can you see, when your mind is not open? How can you think, when yo

Re: Non-free package documentation requirement

> I propose the following extra requirement for non-free and contrib > packages: Hi. While I understand the reason for this requirement to appear, I would suggest to either make it not "requirement" but "strong encouragement" to the maintainer or alter this requirement in the following way: >

Non-free package documentation requirement

I propose the following extra requirement for non-free and contrib packages: A package which is non-free must contain a file /usr/doc//README.non-free (or one of its dependencies must contain a relevant such file). This file must contain either: 1. A copy of an electronic mail message received b

Re: When a bug is a bug?

Hi, I do not want to take sides in this issue (I do not even know what it is all about). But under the draft constituition, either the Technical committee rules on this, forcing the maintainer to treat it as a bug, or you can submit a motion, to be voted on generally, (assuming you fin

General bug policy

I propose the following rules for dealing with disputes over bug reports: 1. In the first instance a package maintainer may decide whethere a bug report not justified and close it if they feel it isn't. 2. If the submitter (or anyone else) disagrees they should try to resolve it by email with the

Re: Conffiles and Configuration files (again)

Hi, >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes: Anthony> [1 ] On Mon, Apr 06, Anthony> 1998 at 05:14:56PM +0200, Santiago Vila Doncel wrote: >> On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Anthony Towns wrote: What I'd like to propose, >> therefore, is extending the "conffile" label to cover all >> configuration files. Why do

Re: Conffiles and Configuration files (again)

Hi, >>"Philip" == Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Philip> OK, an example where it might make sense to have a Philip> non-configuration file, listed as a conffile: Philip> A package includes a script (under /usr/bin say) that is Philip> commonly customised by the local admin. Thi

Re: Conffiles and Configuration files (again)

Philip Hands writes ("Re: Conffiles and Configuration files (again) "): ... > Absolutely, If you _have_ to edit the file for the package to work, that's > a bug. I think it's impractical to make this a requirement. Clearly it would be good for packages not to require configuration by editing scri

Re: Namespace pollution

Remco Blaakmeer writes ("Re: Namespace pollution"): > On Mon, 6 Apr 1998, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > > On Wed, 4 Mar 1998, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > Approval will not normally be granted except for the use of capital > > > letters where there appear in an upstream package command name. > > > > Wa

Re: Conffiles and Configuration files (again)

On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Philip Hands wrote: > > No, this script should not be a conffile. Any customisation, such as fax > > ports, should be read from a configuration file somewhere under /etc. If a > > script in /usr/bin requires customisation by the sysadmin, this is a bug > > in the script. > > A

Re: IMPORTANT: calling ldconfig in maintainer scripts

On Sun, 5 Apr 1998, Christian Schwarz wrote: > > [that's no quotation!] > Packaging Manual - chapter 12: shared libraries > > ... > Any package installing shared libraries in a directory that's listed > in /etc/ld.so.conf has to call "ldconfig" in its postinst script, unless > this scri

When a bug is a bug?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- I have a great difficulty in convincing the Debian octave maintainer that Bug #20561 is a bug. I have explained him in great detail why it is a bug but he still says it is not and even *refuses* to discuss about it. May I also close all my bugs by saying they ar

Re: Conffiles and Configuration files (again)

> On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Philip Hands wrote: > > > OK, an example where it might make sense to have a non-configuration file, > > listed as a conffile: > > > > A package includes a script (under /usr/bin say) that is commonly > > customised by the local admin. > > ... > > No, this script shoul

Re: Conffiles and Configuration files (again)

On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Philip Hands wrote: > OK, an example where it might make sense to have a non-configuration file, > listed as a conffile: > > A package includes a script (under /usr/bin say) that is commonly > customised by the local admin. > > Mgetty's faxrunqd used to be like this, bec

Re: Conffiles and Configuration files (again)

On Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 05:14:56PM +0200, Santiago Vila Doncel wrote: > On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Anthony Towns wrote: > > What I'd like to propose, therefore, is extending the "conffile" label > > to cover all configuration files. > Why do you want to do that? So I can get a list of what files in /etc

Re: Conffiles and Configuration files (again)

> Hi, > >>"Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Joey> Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >> I do seem to remember the policy manager coming with a resolution > >> that so stated. Conffiles are a strict subset of configuration > >> files. > > Joey> I know he didn't, becuase if he had, I would

Re: Namespace pollution

On Mon, 6 Apr 1998, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > On Wed, 4 Mar 1998, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > Approval will not normally be granted except for the use of capital > > letters where there appear in an upstream package command name. > > Was this approved? Christian? > > I'm packaging Login.app, a

Re: Conffiles and Configuration files (again)

Hi, >>"Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Joey> Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> I do seem to remember the policy manager coming with a resolution >> that so stated. Conffiles are a strict subset of configuration >> files. Joey> I know he didn't, becuase if he had, I would still be fighting

Re: Conffiles and Configuration files (again)

Manoj Srivastava wrote: > I do seem to remember the policy manager coming with a > resolution that so stated. Conffiles are a strict subset of > configuration files. I know he didn't, becuase if he had, I would still be fighting it tooth and nail to this day. :-) He *did* propose that no g

Re: Conffiles and Configuration files (again)

Hi, >>"Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Joey> Anthony Towns wrote: >> If I remember aright, conffiles are now a strict subset of >> configuration files. Joey> No. This was debated. We never got a resolution. I strongly Joey> disagree with what you say above. I do seem to r

Re: Namespace pollution

On Wed, 4 Mar 1998, Ian Jackson wrote: > Approval will not normally be granted except for the use of capital > letters where there appear in an upstream package command name. Was this approved? Christian? I'm packaging Login.app, a graphical login prompt. The name of the binary is Login.app, dot