Re: Debian runlevel policy?

1999-03-06 Thread Branden Robinson
On Sat, Mar 06, 1999 at 03:24:13PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote: > Things like xdm not starting because xfs/xfstt haven't started yet > completely have been reported--quite annoying. We do really need to look > at the problem because of these types of things I think. Hopefully we > come up with som

Re: Debian runlevel policy?

1999-03-06 Thread Joseph Carter
On Wed, Mar 03, 1999 at 05:07:41PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > 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 defaul

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

1999-03-06 Thread Aaron Van Couwenberghe
On Wed, Mar 03, 1999 at 03:56:03PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > [ moving to -policy, thanks! ] > > > Would not be much easier to modify install-info itself, instead of > changing so many packages to add a single option? > > [ We should probably change all packages anyway because the info file >

Re: Is the dependency rule distribution-wise?

1999-03-06 Thread Martin Mitchell
Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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 cer