[ Note that I think all this discussion is a little premature - I'd still
like to get the current proposal into policy first. ]
Chris Waters wrote:
> This is why *my* number one, absolute top priority for changes to the
> current menu system is to put in a TOP LEVEL ENTRY NAMED "Help". With
> at
Chris Waters wrote:
> Well, whichever, I should mention that when I started discussing
> possible changes to menu policy with joost, he said I should go ahead
> and bring it up on -policy, but asked that he be CC'd into the
> discussions, since he's not subscribed to -policty. So, I'd like to
> pa
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Because they were designed for menus. It's really a very different thing.
> With menus, you have some constraints:
Some of which we can achieve, some maybe not.
> * You need to put commonly accessed menus as close to the root as possible.
> That's why th
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > I fail to see why it can't be overhauled first so we don't have to
> > change policy later..
> Well it could be. I just anticipate that there will be a lot of discussion
> and probably some disagreements when we start overhauling
On Wed, Apr 14, 1999 at 02:06:11PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> When I started to use Debian, I wondered why the menu sections
> were different categories than the packages sections.
The package sections are a flat list for ftp archive purposes for all Debian
packages.
The menu system is
Fabien Ninoles wrote:
>For sure, sections are a good hint to where menu entries
> goes but they can be different elsewhere you'll get empty menu
> sections and other too much populate.
Joey Hess wrote:
> With menus, you have some constraints:
>
> * You need to put commonly accesse
Quoting Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> When I started to use Debian, I wondered why the menu sections
> were different categories than the packages sections.
>
> If the menu sections are so great, why don't we use them to sort
> packages?
>
> If the package sections are so great, wh
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Joey Hess wrote:
> > I expect once we get this into policy we'll want to overhaul it a bit. I
> > hope we can wait until we've gotten it in to begin that discussion though.
>
> I fail to see why it can't be overhauled first so we don't have to
> change policy l
Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> When I started to use Debian, I wondered why the menu sections
> were different categories than the packages sections.
>
> If the menu sections are so great, why don't we use them to sort
> packages?
Because they were designed for menus. It's really a very different thi
When I started to use Debian, I wondered why the menu sections
were different categories than the packages sections.
If the menu sections are so great, why don't we use them to sort
packages?
If the package sections are so great, why don't we use them to sort
menus?
Perhaps this is our chance t
Galen Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 11, 1999 at 09:10:15PM +0200, Martin Stjernholm wrote:
/.../
> > Being a "metabug", i.e. a bug in the policy, accentuates it even more
> > since packages _have_ to implement this weakness and activate it by
> > default.
>
> Hi, I'd just like
[Brian, your summary of the idea is nearly perfect. Thanks for taking
the time to explain this in a clear way that I wasn't able to. I
really depend on people such as you to interpret my grunts and
hand-waving and come up with a coherent explanation that makes sense
to other people. ;)]
To reduc
Previously Joey Hess wrote:
> I expect once we get this into policy we'll want to overhaul it a bit. I
> hope we can wait until we've gotten it in to begin that discussion though.
I fail to see why it can't be overhauled first so we don't have to
change policy later..
Wichert.
--
==
On Wed, Apr 14, 1999 at 02:51:23AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Severity: wishlist
Seconded.
--
G. Branden Robinson | Reality is what refuses to go away when
Debian GNU/Linux | I stop believing in it.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Phili
On Wed, Apr 14, 1999 at 05:23:20PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 1999 at 06:59:51PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > I generally prefer not to have /floppy and /cdrom personally. I place
> > these under /mnt/floppy, /mnt/cdrom, /mnt/zip, etc. It seems to me that
> > /mnt is more a
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Previously Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
>> I hate cluttered up root directories. The first thing I do is a
>> rmdir /floppy /initrd; rm /vmlinux and all that stuff since 95%
>> of the machines I use don't NEED it.
>
>Wel
On Wed, Apr 14, 1999 at 04:48:39AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 1999 at 03:02:11AM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> >
> > Well personally I really disklike to have mountpoints under /mnt..
> > so, do we have the next battle after /var/spool/mail versus /var/mail ?
>
> It's unreas
Previously Joseph Carter wrote:
> I have used them. And I've seen that people tend to either use (in my
> case) sda4 or they format the things to use sda... I have seen some
> exotic formatted zip disks with a partition on sda4 and another on sda1
> too.
Okay, but we're becoming silly now. We wa
On Wed, Apr 14, 1999 at 02:14:04PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > No, Zip disks are removable small hard drives... Partition tables and
> > all.
>
> Have you ever actually used Zip disks? They always use primary partition
> number 4. Using something else is just as silly as putting iso9660 on
Previously Joseph Carter wrote:
> No, Zip disks are removable small hard drives... Partition tables and
> all.
Have you ever actually used Zip disks? They always use primary partition
number 4. Using something else is just as silly as putting iso9660 on
it.
Wichert.
--
On Wed, Apr 14, 1999 at 02:51:23AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> I propose that the menu hierarchy be taken out of menu.sgml in the menu
> package and added to the policy manual, section 3.6, following the second
> paragraph of that section. [..]
Thirded.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, Apr 14, 1999 at 03:02:11AM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > I hate cluttered up root directories. The first thing I do is a
> > rmdir /floppy /initrd; rm /vmlinux and all that stuff since 95%
> > of the machines I use don't NEED it.
>
> Well personally I really disklike to have mountpoin
On Wed, Apr 14, 1999 at 05:21:25PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Would be ok for you that /cdrom and /floppy are only created on the
> > initial install?
>
> That sounds like the best solution (IMHO). If the FHS says that
> /cdrom and /floppy CANNOT exist, it is ignorant of real working
> envir
On Wed, Apr 14, 1999 at 02:59:21AM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > I'll probably change that a little to support SCSI floppies (common on
> > sparcs).
>
> And zip disks (same as IDE floppies)?
No, Zip disks are removable small hard drives... Partition tables and
all.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL
Le Wed, Apr 14, 1999 at 02:51:23AM -0700, Joey Hess écrivait:
> So I'm looking for non-technical corrections to the above, seconds for
> the proposal, and hopefully a consensus on the list that this should become
> a policy amendment.
Seconded.
--
Hertzog Raphaël >> 0C4CABF1 >> http://prope.insa
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
I propose that the menu hierarchy be taken out of menu.sgml in the menu
package and added to the policy manual, section 3.6, following the second
paragraph of that section. The rationale for doing this is that the menu
hierarchy effects a large number of p
On Mon, Apr 12, 1999 at 06:59:51PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> I generally prefer not to have /floppy and /cdrom personally. I place
> these under /mnt/floppy, /mnt/cdrom, /mnt/zip, etc. It seems to me that
> /mnt is more appropiate for random mountpoints not part of the regular
> filesystem th
On Tue, Apr 13, 1999 at 08:43:23PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Would be ok for you that /cdrom and /floppy are only created on the
> initial install?
That sounds like the best solution (IMHO). If the FHS says that
/cdrom and /floppy CANNOT exist, it is ignorant of real working
environments. Wher
Previously Enrique Zanardi wrote:
> For new potato installations, the default /etc/fstab will have the
> following:
>
> /dev/fd0 /floppy auto defaults,user,noauto 0 0
> /dev/cdrom/cdromiso9660 defaults,ro,user,noauto 0 0
Can't you leave out defaults if you supply other op
Previously Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> I hate cluttered up root directories. The first thing I do is a
> rmdir /floppy /initrd; rm /vmlinux and all that stuff since 95%
> of the machines I use don't NEED it.
Well personally I really disklike to have mountpoints under /mnt..
so, do we have the
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>Gordon Matzigkeit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> BM> When the source package is compiled, the appropriate items from
>> BM> the "Nonshared-depends" would get moved to "Depends".
>>
>> Or, equivalently, the `||' symbols in the Depends field would be
>>
31 matches
Mail list logo
