On 17-Apr-99, 12:20 (CDT), Brock Rozen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Unless, of course, the default system $PATH has been changed, for whatever
> reason.
But if it was changed for a reason, then the scripts shouldn't override
it.
> What if I change the path? These scripts should work even if I
On Sat, Apr 17, 1999 at 04:26:22AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> As long as you're making the basic assumption that the package
> that is built becomes dependent on the `dpkg --print-architecture`
> of the build environment,
[...]
... which should really be $DEB_BUILD_ARCH following my amendme
> Hamish Moffatt writes:
HM> On Thu, Apr 15, 1999 at 05:31:56AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
>> care. => This is a Good Thing and we should seriously consider
>> doing it)
HM> Don't forget to add "in my humble opinion" whenever you say
HM> something like this. Please don't presume to spe
On 17 Apr 1999, Jean Charles Delepine wrote:
> > Assume I'm running as root and have made the changes to let it happen w/o
> > a password. I'm going to get an error here that it can't find
> > "start-stop-daemon". Alternatively, if I change the "daemon" script to
> > point to /sbin/start-stop-daem
On 16 Apr 1999, Roderick Schertler wrote:
> > All scripts must have one of the following two contained in them:
> >
> > 1) A PATH environment setting that lists all the directories where any
> > programs invoked by the script may be found.
>
> I don't think this is a good idea. Why should the sa
Brock Rozen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One solution I've come up with is to use something of the sort:
>
> ssh remotehost /etc/init.d/daemon reload
>
> Assume I'm running as root and have made the changes to let it happen w/o
> a password. I'm going to get an error here that it can't find
> "s
On Thu, Apr 15, 1999 at 05:31:56AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> care. => This is a Good Thing and we should seriously consider doing
> it)
Don't forget to add "in my humble opinion" whenever you say something
like this. Please don't presume to speak for everyone else.
I think the current sit
On Fri, Apr 16, 1999 at 09:50:38PM +0200, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> > I like this. I'm not going to necessarily consider this something that
> > is going to be done on a Debian-wide scale (though I think it should be
> > personally), but I'm about to do it on MY system. Thank you for the
> > sugge
> Richard Braakman writes:
RB> I've read Brian's summary, but I still don't see the point of
RB> this operator. It seems that what you want to accomplish can be
RB> done just as easily with:
RB> Depends: hwarch-${Arch}, ${shlibs:Depends}
Thanks for pointing this out. I'll integrate it
Brian May wrote:
> Richard Braakman wrote:
> >I've read Brian's summary, but I still don't see the point of this
> >operator. It seems that what you want to accomplish can be
> >done just as easily with:
> >
> >Depends: hwarch-${Arch}, ${shlibs:Depends}
>
> You can't say
>
> Depends: hwarch-i38
Richard Braakman wrote:
>Gordon Matzigkeit wrote:
>> [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 cohere
11 matches
Mail list logo
