Hi,
>>"Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joey> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Joey> 1. A package is broken. It does not work, or it does not install, or it
Joey> breaks other packages that depend on it or use it, etc.
Joey> 2. A package is in violation of policy.
>>
>> Of course the
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Joey> 1. A package is broken. It does not work, or it does not install, or
> it
> Joey>breaks other packages that depend on it or use it, etc.
>
> I have reservations about the last bit (I would like to see
> the wording tightened a bit), but I understand.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I don't want a separate directory for Debian to use. I would like the
>standard directory available for the webmaster to use. Think of
>/cgi-lib/ as an equivalent to /usr/lib/ or /usr/bin/, and /cgi-bin/ as
>an equivalent to
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 04:02:43PM +, Jules Bean wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Martin Schulze wrote:
>
> > Brian White wrote:
> > > > If you file this as bug agains Apache you need to file it against all
> > > > other
> > > > httpd's that support cgi-bin as well. Thus I assume that you need
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Brian White wrote:
> > > If you file this as bug agains Apache you need to file it against all
> > > other
> > > httpd's that support cgi-bin as well. Thus I assume that you need to
> > > modify
> > > policy first.
> >
> > I figured I'd start with t
Brian White wrote:
> > If you file this as bug agains Apache you need to file it against all other
> > httpd's that support cgi-bin as well. Thus I assume that you need to modify
> > policy first.
>
> I figured I'd start with the big one and then work my way around. However,
> somebody has reass
> > Most people setting up a web site expect /cgi-bin/ to be available for
> > scripts on their site. Unfortunately, Debian uses this for those scripts
> > packages that get installed. These two need to be independant.
>
> I don't seem to understand your intention. Why to you want to separate
>
Hi!
> Michael Stone writes:
MS> Why not just wait until the next wholly incompatible libc upgrade
MS> (when things will have to change) instead of making a gratuitous
MS> policy shift?
According to Ulrich Drepper, GNU ld's symbol versioning capabilities
which are exploited in glibc-2.1 sh
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I would like to further clarify my stance on this issue.
>
> For what it's worth, I think I understand your stance and have for a while.
> I just disagree with it.
Me too
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 10:34:40AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Brian White wrote:
> > Package: apache
> > Version: 1.3.3-4
>
> > Most people setting up a web site expect /cgi-bin/ to be available for
> > scripts on their site. Unfortunately, Debian uses this for those scripts
> > packages that
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Brian White wrote:
> > Package: apache
> > Version: 1.3.3-4
>
> > Most people setting up a web site expect /cgi-bin/ to be available for
> > scripts on their site. Unfortunately, Debian uses this for those scripts
> > packages that get installed. The
Brian White wrote:
> Package: apache
> Version: 1.3.3-4
> Most people setting up a web site expect /cgi-bin/ to be available for
> scripts on their site. Unfortunately, Debian uses this for those scripts
> packages that get installed. These two need to be independant.
I don't seem to understand
Hi,
>>"Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> An incompatible change in menu does not mean the package does
>> not work. It does. Just every other package is now broken. By your
>> own rules, one may not report bugs against menu.
Joey> Ok, let me try again since "or whatever"'s to
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I would like to further clarify my stance on this issue.
For what it's worth, I think I understand your stance and have for a while.
I just disagree with it.
--
see shy jo
> An incompatible change in menu does not mean the package does
> not work. It does. Just every other package is now broken. By your
> own rules, one may not report bugs against menu.
Ok, let me try again since "or whatever"'s too vague for you.
There are two valid reasons for a bug repo
Hi,
I would like to further clarify my stance on this issue. I
want policy to document whatever it takes for other packages to
interface with the package in question, once that interface spec has
stabilized. In other words, you violate policy, people can file bugs
against you.
Hi,
>>"Darren" == Darren Benham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Darren> I think we've got a few issues here...
Darren> One is an authors control over their own code. For example,
Darren> IWJ basicly (co-?) owns dpkg. Debian-policy should not have
Darren> any power to dictate what an author doe
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 32263 debian-policy
Bug#32263: Unexpected use of /cgi-bin/
Bug reassigned from package `apache' to `debian-policy'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Ian Jackson
(administrator, Debian bugs database
Hi,
>>"Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joey> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> FUD. If you are changing things in a incompatible fashion and
>> breaking other packages and policy, I sure hope t put additional
>> obstacles in your path. In fact, this is a prime argument for
>> putting
reassign 32263 debian-policy
thanks
The change being requested in this Bug would break Apache conformance
with Debian Policy 2.5.0.0 chapter 5 section 4 subsection 1.
- PGP E4 70 6E 59 80 6A F5 78 63 32 BC FB 7A 08 53 4C
__ _Debian GNU Johnie Ingram <[EMA
Your message dated Thu, 21 Jan 1999 19:50:27 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line (no subject)
has caused the attached bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reo
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 05:33:32PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> I guess, logically, a -dev package for a libc6 library should depend on
> libc6-dev and a -dev package for a libc5 library should depend on
> libc5-dev, source packages should depend on libc-dev as it hopefully
> irrelevent which ve
Quoting Joel Klecker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> OK, proposal is amended to use `glibc2-dev' as the dependency.
Why not just wait until the next wholly incompatible libc upgrade (when
things will have to change) instead of making a gratuitous policy shift?
Mike Stone
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Joel Klecker wrote:
> At 21:55 + 1999-01-21, James Troup wrote:
> >If this is really a problem which needs addresses, libc6-dev (and
> >equivalents) _must_ providing something other than libc-dev.
> >(glibc-dev maybe?) Anything else is worse than ugly.
>
> OK, proposal
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 02:40:03PM -0800, Joel Klecker wrote:
> At 21:55 + 1999-01-21, James Troup wrote:
> >If this is really a problem which needs addresses, libc6-dev (and
> >equivalents) _must_ providing something other than libc-dev.
> >(glibc-dev maybe?) Anything else is worse than ugly.
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 02:40:03PM -0800, Joel Klecker wrote:
> At 21:55 + 1999-01-21, James Troup wrote:
> >If this is really a problem which needs addresses, libc6-dev (and
> >equivalents) _must_ providing something other than libc-dev.
> >(glibc-dev maybe?) Anything else is worse than ugly.
26 matches
Mail list logo
