On May 09, Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is a slight problem though: utmp. Currently only root can
> update the utmp. To solve this I propose we create an utmp
> group and put in policy that programs that want to modify the
> utmp should be setgid utmp instead of setuid root
On Sun, May 09, 1999 at 08:33:39PM +0200, Piotr Roszatycki wrote:
> I maintain package xfonts-latin2-biznet.
> I think about change of package name. Maybe xfonts-biznet-iso8859-2 will be
> better?
>
> My proposition for any font package:
> xfonts---
>
> What about font package names? There is a l
Hi,
On 9 May, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> On Sat, May 08, 1999 at 04:46:48PM -0500, Ossama Othman wrote:
> > Description (from Joey Hess):
> > .la files aren't useless, libtool can use them and they are essential
> > to programs that use libltdl. Proposal is to include .la files in -dev
> > p
On Sat, May 08, 1999 at 04:46:48PM -0500, Ossama Othman wrote:
> Description (from Joey Hess):
> .la files aren't useless, libtool can use them and they are essential
> to programs that use libltdl. Proposal is to include .la files in -dev
> packages if they are produced by the build process.
P
On Sun, May 09, 1999 at 04:03:01PM -0700, Guy Maor wrote:
> Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This seems like *such* an obvious solution to so many problems that I
> > find myself perplexed why this hasn't done before, by others.
>
> Because it requires glibc 2.1 and kernel 2.2.
Whi
Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This seems like *such* an obvious solution to so many problems that I
> find myself perplexed why this hasn't done before, by others.
Because it requires glibc 2.1 and kernel 2.2.
Guy
On Sun, May 09, 1999 at 03:19:19AM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Now that we have working Unix98 ptys for all systems (except m68k,
> which doesn't want to move to glibc2.1 for some reason?) we no longer
> need to make a process setuid root just to create a new pty. This
> includes programs like
On Sun, May 09, 1999 at 11:31:14AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> >Do we consider things like libgif3g candidates for non-us/main? That's
> >currently sitting on NON-FREE because of the stupid patent on lzw! IMO
> >that's just like wrong or something. =>
> We should. If your country has silly p
On Sat, May 08, 1999 at 05:30:26PM -0700, Joel Klecker wrote:
> >Very few stayed in main, but you can check the exact numbers yourself.
>
> Mostly due to SSLeay/OpenSSL being compiled with IDEA support, IIRC.
>
> I am not entirely convinced that it is correct to knock
> SSLeay/OpenSSL to non-fre
Hi,
I neglected to mention some things Manoj suggested I mention in the
ammendment bug report for inclusion of `.la' files in `-dev' packages
so here they are:
-
Wording to go in to what is currently section 4.3 "Shared Libraries" in
the policy manual (toward the end of the section):
What if a package is installed, and puts a script in a run-parts
directory or into a .d directory, but isn't configured due to a
missing dependancy? The newbie "sysadmin" doesn't know to look for
it, and leaves it there, then gets email from cron. Per sends off a
tech support question.
This cou
On May 08, William Brioschi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In addition, the packages in "main"
> * must not require a package outside of "main" for compilation or
> execution (thus, the package may not declare a "Depends" or
> "Recommends" relationship on a non-main package),
On May 09, Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Do we consider things like libgif3g candidates for non-us/main? That's
>currently sitting on NON-FREE because of the stupid patent on lzw! IMO
>that's just like wrong or something. =>
We should. If your country has silly patent laws it's
On May 09, Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>There is a slight problem though: utmp. Currently only root can update
>the utmp. To solve this I propose we create an utmp group and put in
>policy that programs that want to modify the utmp should be setgid utmp
>instead of setuid root (
On May 09, Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>(1) That section 3.1 of the policy be rewritten replacing every
>reference to "FSSTND" by the equivalent reference to "FHS".
Seconded.
--
ciao,
Marco
At 03:19 +0200 1999-05-09, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> To solve this I propose we create an utmp group and put in
> policy that programs that want to modify the utmp should be setgid utmp
> instead of setuid root (unless root is needed for other purposes of
> course).
This seems like *such* an obvi
On Sun, May 09, 1999 at 04:26:20AM -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I think the question is this:
>
>If a program has a free license, but cannot actually be used
>except to communicate with some non-free software
>running on another site, should such a program be allowed
>to go in
At 03:19 +0200 1999-05-09, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> To solve this I propose we create an utmp group and put in
> policy that programs that want to modify the utmp should be setgid utmp
> instead of setuid root (unless root is needed for other purposes of
> course).
Seconded.
-Ossama
--
Oss
On Sun, May 09, 1999 at 09:40:01AM -0700, Aaron Van Couwenberghe wrote:
> On Sat, May 08, 1999 at 11:27:49PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > On Sun, May 09, 1999 at 02:10:27AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > > PROPOSAL
> > >
> > >
> > > (1) That section 3.1 of the policy be rewritten repl
On Sat, May 08, 1999 at 16:01:39 +0200, William Brioschi wrote:
> Excluding THE solution (eliminating non-US),
Not feasible yet.
> the correct solution IMO would be making US/non-US an orthogonal
> classification to main/contrib/non-free. I.e. a main/US, main/non-US,
> contrib/US, etc.
This is b
On Thu, May 06, 1999 at 07:36:52PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> >No. Contrib gets two types of packages: Those packages that require
> >linking with non-free software and those packages that cannot be built
> >from the source package without installing non-free software. In theory
> It also
Le Sun, May 09, 1999 at 03:19:19AM +0200, Wichert Akkerman écrivait:
> There is a slight problem though: utmp. Currently only root can update
> the utmp. To solve this I propose we create an utmp group and put in
> policy that programs that want to modify the utmp should be setgid utmp
> instead of
On Sun, May 09, 1999 at 04:26:20AM -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I don't see much difference in practice between these three cases:
> (1) Communicating with a site running a proprietary server package.
> (2) Communicating with a site running a GPL-covered server package
> with privat
On Sat, May 08, 1999 at 02:16:43PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I think we have descended to a level of nit picking that is at
> odds with reaching a common ground.
Then let me summarise my arugment.
Currently, packages are put into contrib under a policy that is
essentially:
*
I think the question is this:
If a program has a free license, but cannot actually be used
except to communicate with some non-free software
running on another site, should such a program be allowed
to go in main?
I think that it is ok to put those programs in main, because they
don't
At 03:19 +0200 1999-05-09, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
To solve this I propose we create an utmp group and put in
policy that programs that want to modify the utmp should be setgid utmp
instead of setuid root (unless root is needed for other purposes of
course).
Seconded.
--
Joel Klecker (aka Espy)
At 22:05 +0200 1999-05-08, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote:
How many packages in non-US can be moved to non-US/main? How
many go to non-US/contrib and non-US/non-free?
Very few stayed in main, but you can check the exact numbers yourself.
Mostly due to SSLe
Remco Blaakmeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> IIRC, the whole discussion started after an archive maintainer
> rejected a new package that was supposed to go into main, for the
> reason that _he_ thinks it is useful only if it talks a proprietary
> network protocol for which there is no free serve
On Sun, May 09, 1999 at 02:10:27AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> PROPOSAL
>
>
> (1) That section 3.1 of the policy be rewritten replacing every
> reference to "FSSTND" by the equivalent reference to "FHS".
>
> (2) That a period of consultation on -devel and/or -policy during the
>
On Sun, May 09, 1999 at 03:19:19AM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> I propose we create an utmp group and put in policy that programs that
> want to modify the utmp should be setgid utmp instead of setuid root
> (unless root is needed for other purposes of course).
Seconded.
--
G. Branden Robins
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
[After having brought this up a few times and not got very far, let's
actually try a formal proposal. My first one, so apologies if I
haven't got the protocol quite right.]
Background
==
Policy 3.1 currently requires the filesystem layout to fol
Now that we have working Unix98 ptys for all systems (except m68k,
which doesn't want to move to glibc2.1 for some reason?) we no longer
need to make a process setuid root just to create a new pty. This
includes programs like xterm.
There is a slight problem though: utmp. Currently only root can
On Sat, May 08, 1999 at 02:26:44PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Marco> I'm opening a bug against the policy and I propose that those words in
> Marco> 2.1.3:
>
> Marco> "non-free", or "non-US"
> Marco> be replaced by the words
> Marco> or "non-free"
>
> I think I tend to agree. C
33 matches
Mail list logo
