On Mon, 20 Jul 1998, Jim Pick wrote:
> When I packaged the gnome apps, I originally installed them into
> /usr/X11R6 because they were X applications.
>
> David Engel disagreed with this, and said /usr/X11R6 was only for the
> X system itself, not applications. Since I couldn't find anything in
>
Jim Pick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When I packaged the gnome apps, I originally installed them into
> /usr/X11R6 because they were X applications.
> David Engel disagreed with this, and said /usr/X11R6 was only for the
> X system itself, not applications. Since I couldn't find anything in
>
Hi,
>>"Philip" == Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Philip> This seems reasonable.
Indeed.
Philip> If no one objects I'll upload a copy of the policy manual
Philip> with this change.
Could you please set a period where objections may be tallied,
and there is chance to
As we have had this discussion on the side a few times, I would like to
personally vote for b. If it runs in X, then I am all for it going in
/usr/X11R6/bin (makes them easier to find). I am unsure on the
/usr/X11R6/lib though. This has long been a no-man's land.
Jim Pick wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> W
Hi,
When I packaged the gnome apps, I originally installed them into
/usr/X11R6 because they were X applications.
David Engel disagreed with this, and said /usr/X11R6 was only for the
X system itself, not applications. Since I couldn't find anything in
the Debian Policy manual, FSSTND or FHS t
Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Philip Hands:
> > Is nogroup guaranteed never to own any files ?
>
> The Policy manual does not guarantee it, but it's the only reason for
> the group (and the corresponding user) to exist in the first place.
> Actually, the Policy manual doesn't even me
On 19 Jul 1998, James Troup wrote:
> Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The problem isn't in the postinst (I know neither of them use set
> > -e) but in the preinst script.
>
> Say what? update-alternatives is called in the *postinst*, and it's
> the *postinst* that is mentioned in
Previously Dale Scheetz wrote:
> But I don't want it to fail, because there is no reason for it to do so,
> and this editor may very well be the only one on the system! Failure of
> the install for the trivial failure to register as "EDITOR" is
> unnecessary, and undesirable.
Dale, I think you are
Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The problem isn't in the postinst (I know neither of them use set -e) but
> in the preinst script. If that script fails then ae is not installed.
>
> All editors now use update-alternatives to place themselves in the
> priority queue for "editor". If upda
9 matches
Mail list logo
