Processed: Debian runlevel policy?

1999-03-03 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > reassign 34046 debian-policy Bug#34046: xdm: xdm should not start in all multi-user runlevels by default Bug reassigned from package `xdm' to `debian-policy'. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Ian Jackson (a

Debian runlevel policy?

1999-03-03 Thread Branden Robinson
reassign 34046 debian-policy thanks I guess we should start a discussion as to what we want in the runlevels. If there's anything that shouldn't be in at least one of the multi-user runlevels, xdm is it. What else? N.B.: We'll also have to change the default runlevel to be the most featureful on

Re: Bug#33156: debian-policy: Cannot find referenced file in given URL

1999-03-03 Thread Ian Jackson
Hamish Moffatt writes ("Re: Bug#33156: debian-policy: Cannot find referenced file in given URL"): ... > Maintainer scripts should be written in posix or bash; no argument there. > However, upstream should be free to use whatever scripting language it > wants. Is anyone disputing this ? The polic

Re: FHS again (Re: slink is gone, goals for potato?)

1999-03-03 Thread Santiago Vila
[ moving to -policy, thanks! ] On Wed, 3 Mar 1999, Joel Klecker wrote: > At 13:23 +0100 1999-03-03, Santiago Vila wrote: > >On Wed, 3 Mar 1999, Joel Klecker wrote: > >> I have already stated this several times, `info' has a large number > >> of directories in its default INFOPATH, including /usr/

FHS again (Re: slink is gone, goals for potato?)

1999-03-03 Thread Joel Klecker
At 13:23 +0100 1999-03-03, Santiago Vila wrote: On Wed, 3 Mar 1999, Joel Klecker wrote: I have already stated this several times, `info' has a large number of directories in its default INFOPATH, including /usr/share/info. Fine. Does this mean that we can already use /usr/share/info? How does