On debian-policy, Thomas Schoepf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Please CC me, I'm not subscribed to this list]
>
> I have a package that contains a README file with the program's history at
> the bottom. I've read the Policy about changelog files but afai can see
> this is a special case.
>
> Curr
On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 10:47:09AM -0700, Darren O. Benham wrote:
> Is there a policy ruling n this?
I doubt it, however...
> > > E: gstep-base-dbg: usr-doc-symlink-without-dependency gstep-base
> > >
> > > gstep-base-dbg depends on gstep-base-dev, which depends on gstep-base,
> > > so linit
Is there a policy ruling n this?
- Forwarded message from Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
MBOX-Line: From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jul 05 17:48:10 1999
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Debian Bug Tracking System)
To: "Darren O. Benham" <[EMAIL PROTEC
On 05-Jul-99, 07:49 (CDT), Roland Rosenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jul 1999, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > Agreed, users should not be forced to upgrade unnecessarily, nor
> > accross-the-board, and we should make that as painlesl *as
> > reasonably feasible*.
>
> That's what I mean
On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 05:45:46PM +0200, Thomas Schoepf wrote:
> [Please CC me, I'm not subscribed to this list]
>
> I have a package that contains a README file with the program's history at
> the bottom. I've read the Policy about changelog files but afai can see
> this is a special case.
>
>
> "Miquel" == Miquel van Smoorenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Miquel> It sounds more like you want a rc.local style directory,
Miquel> not rc.boot.
Miquel> But what is so difficult about update-rc.d? It's only one
Miquel> line in the postinst .. (and one in prerm)
It's not
[Please CC me, I'm not subscribed to this list]
I have a package that contains a README file with the program's history at
the bottom. I've read the Policy about changelog files but afai can see
this is a special case.
Currently I'm thinking about letting changelog.gz be a symlink to
README.gz.
On Sun, 04 Jul 1999, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > Because Debian is the distribution, where the user can upgrade or
> > keep every single package without any drawbacks.
> ^
> Who says that?
I say this. IMHO this is one of the main advantages of Debia
According to Ben Gertzfield:
> I think both /etc/rcS.d/ and /etc/rc.boot/ have their place, and
> I know personally that /etc/rc.boot/ is far more convenient for
> non-packages that need to start up once on bootup and don't
> want (or care) to know about update-rc.d.
>
> Thoughts?
It sounds more
package: debian-policy
version: 3.0.0.0
(NOTE: This is not a repeat of of 'Bug#40766: [PROPOSED] Rewrite of
"Configuration files" section')
This proposal is to clean up the wording of several sections in the
document that discuss "conffiles" and "configuration files", as well
as a few other minor
package: debian-policy
version: 3.0.0.0
The configuration files section has long needed correction
and clarification. I propose we replace the existing section
(currently 4.7) with the following text. (I don't think I've
made any substantiative changes to actual policy, but I may
have shaded some
Why dpnt't we simply modify debhelper and similar tools to add this to
postinst of packages: (only if upgrading from a pre-FHS version)
if [ $1 = configure -a { $2 is a previous version than 1.2 } ]; then
ln -sf ../share/$package /usr/doc/$package
fi
And it would be just adding a
On 04-Jul-99, 05:32 (CDT), Roland Rosenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because Debian is the distribution, where the user can upgrade or keep
> every single package without any drawbacks.
^
Who says that? Agreed, users should not be forced to upgrade
u
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 40742 debian-policy
Bug#40742: proftpd: needs to conflict only with old wu-ftpds
Bug reassigned from package `proftpd' to `debian-policy'.
> retitle 40742 proposal: a new virtual package for FTP servers
Bug#40742: proftpd: needs to conflict on
reassign 40742 debian-policy
retitle 40742 proposal: a new virtual package for FTP servers
thanks
On Sun, Jul 04, 1999 at 08:34:27PM -0400, Johnie Ingram wrote:
> Josip> Conflicts: wu-ftpd (<< 2.5)
> Josip>
> Josip> Why? Because I just uploaded wu-ftpd 2.5.0, and they share no
> Josip> files :)
>
> "Miquel" == Miquel van Smoorenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Miquel> Well, what's wrong is that there is no certain order of
Miquel> execution defined for the scripts in /etc/rc.boot. Then we
Miquel> got things like /etc/rc.boot/0serial and such, so why not
Miquel> use a sy
16 matches
Mail list logo
