Bredewlow,
You have raised a number of important issues. However I think we need to
wait until Gordon finishes his proposal he is working on until we start
debating again, to ensure that we are all looking at the same set of
issues. Otherwise it gets too confusing for everybody involved.
>Why do
Hi,
Here are my questions:
Is there some place (document of some kind) where the Quality Assurance
'thing' is defined and described?
Does the QA policy have to be part of the Policy, or some other document?
If the former, what does a formal policy amendment need to have?
PLEASE CC: all replies t
Quoting "Juergen A. Erhard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[snip first part]
>
> [SNIP Chris# response]
>
> I'd propose (if I were a developer), to *not* put everything under the
> sun into the default menu.
>
> Instead, we should make it editable... such that, when the user first
> opens the menu, there
On 20-Apr-99, 01:05 (CDT), Brock Rozen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Apr 1999, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > And appending doesn't really help. If you assume that you can't trust
> > root's path, then you have to override it, or else you just trade one
> > set of problems ("can't find route
Adrian Lopez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The purpose of this message is to inspire discussion with respect to
> Debian's package dependency issues. I apologise if this is not the
> proper venue for this, but I felt that the dpkg and deity development
> lists would be even less appropriate. I als
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
...
> > B> When I'm a hurd fan, I can just select debian-hurd and hit the
> > B> download key (together with stabling symlincs) and I have my hurd
> > B> for all my archs.
>
> Why not just use apt?
Because apt won`t run on HPux and it certainly won`t install
Gordon Matzigkeit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Brederlow writes:
>
> B> It's not quite a port, it's a different operating system. :)
>
> Is a system that uses vim instead of elvis a new port or a new
> operating system? My answer is neither, it's just an additional
> option for basical
> > > > Consider su -c /etc/init.d/blah
Brock Rozen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What am I missing?
We have new sysadmins coming into being every hour. Learning is
heuristic. Right now, su -c ... is likely to fail for sbin/
commands.
If you change the system so that su -c is practically guaran
On Mon, 19 Apr 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Consider su -c /etc/init.d/blah
>
> > And if the PATH wasn't appended, how would su -c /etc/init.d/blah be any
> > different, except that it may not run?
>
> So? It's not as if su -c is the only issue involved. And, not running
> is only relevant
On Mon, 19 Apr 1999, Steve Greenland wrote:
> directories". My point is that if for some reason a bunch of the
> standard programs move to some other directory, then that new directory
> will need to be added to all the scripts. The scripts don't *know* what
> paths they need, except by convention
10 matches
Mail list logo
