Re: Is the dependency rule distribution-wise?

1999-02-25 Thread Jules Bean
On 25 Feb 1999, James Troup wrote: > > > Giving the package maintainers more control over the overrides for > > their own packages seems a good strategy. Can you tell us why this > > approach was abandoned earlier? > > How about because a certain developer would be free to NMU like it was > goin

Re: Is the dependency rule distribution-wise?

1999-02-25 Thread James Troup
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Previously Guy Maor wrote: > > I'm not sure that is such a good idea. That's the way it was done > > initially. > > The fact remains that currently noone seems to reading > [EMAIL PROTECTED] at the moment: I have gotten complaints > that people mail

Is HTML compressed?

1999-02-25 Thread Adrian Bridgett
I've got a package with _loads_ of .html files, but I can't see if they should be compressed or not. The policy-manual describes what to do for info files and manpages, but not for HTML - it just falls under the "compress unless it's small". I've no idea which webserver can server .gz files uncom

Re: Why -g flag?

1999-02-25 Thread Joseph Carter
On Tue, Feb 23, 1999 at 06:48:36PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > > gdb gives no usable output... > > Maybe you stripped the file? I can perfectly debug code that has been > optimized with -O2.. (in fact I do most debugging on optimized code, I'm > simply to lazy to remove that flag I guess :) )

[OTP] Re: smarter way to differ architectures needed?

1999-02-25 Thread Aaron Van Couwenberghe
On Tue, Feb 09, 1999 at 09:09:43PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously Guy Maor wrote: > > b looks like a reasonable solution, and would not be hard to > > implement. Of course, as you said, if only a handful of packages are > > affected, then it's less work to do c. > > Of course if we r

Re: Is the dependency rule distribution-wise?

1999-02-25 Thread Wichert Akkerman
Previously Guy Maor wrote: > I'm not sure that is such a good idea. That's the way it was done > initially. The fact remains that currently noone seems to reading [EMAIL PROTECTED] at the moment: I have gotten complaints that people mailed that multiple times (mostly to change the maintainer of a

Bug#33826: section 3.4.2 clarify naming .sh scripts in /etc/init.d/

1999-02-25 Thread Richard Hawes
Package: debian-policy Version: 2.4.1.2 -- System Information Debian Release: 2.0 Kernel Version: Linux debian 2.0.34 #2 Thu Jul 9 10:57:48 EST 1998 i686 unknown Sentence 2 of paragraph 1 says: "These scripts should be named /etc/init.d/package," when should scripts have a .sh suffix? rc and