Joel Klecker wrote:
> man-db has supported the FHS paths for months. From the changelog:
Yes, but we have other man browsers.
--
see shy jo
Joseph Carter wrote:
> Um. Given glibc2.1 it would be Very Unsmart to try to use potato packages
> on a slink system.
Arch: all
> I don't know who came up with the idea of partial
> upgradability
Partial upgradability has been something debian has always managed. Every
single person who tracks
Ron wrote:
> What I had hoped I could do in this case would be simply to remount
> the /usr/doc partition as /usr/share/doc and then symlink /usr/doc
> to it.. however it was previously indicated that this might cause
> problems with dpkg..
The best thing to do is probably to make sure that /usr/
Le Wed, Jul 07, 1999 at 05:38:04PM +0200, Santiago Vila écrivait:
> We could have some sort of FHS-threshold for the release:
>
> "We will not release until 90% of all priority >= standard packages are
> converted to use /usr/share/doc" or else "we will not release until 80% of
> the 300 most popu
> It would help because /usr/doc could become almost empty *for a typical
> system*. (Not if you install the 2500+ packages, of course).
..actually this is almost exactly the *problem* that this change is
going to cause one of my debian boxes.
I have a box that uses several smallish drives.. so
At 10:33 -0700 1999-07-07, Joey Hess wrote:
What is it? I'd love to make debhelper start using that directory by
default.
man-db has supported the FHS paths for months. From the changelog:
* FHS compliance:
- add /usr/share/man in /etc/manpath.conf
- move /var/catman to /var/cache/m
On Wed, Jul 07, 1999 at 11:05:55AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Joseph Carter wrote:
> > > What is it? I'd love to make debhelper start using that directory by
> > > default. (And BTW, is /usr/share/X11R6/man supposed to be used for X man
> > > pages?)
> >
> > No, /usr/X11R6/man should remain /usr/X1
Santiago Vila wrote:
> For people not using helper tools (there are many of them), this means
> *double* work for every package, because you have first to provide
> symlinks and then you have to remove them.
It can be pretty easy to do. Make an update-doc-symlinks script, that takes
a single (add/
Joseph Carter wrote:
> > What is it? I'd love to make debhelper start using that directory by
> > default. (And BTW, is /usr/share/X11R6/man supposed to be used for X man
> > pages?)
>
> No, /usr/X11R6/man should remain /usr/X11R6/man---it's part of the whole
> /usr/X11R6-is-left-alone-for-now-at-
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Policy currently says that:
If the upstream changelog file is text formatted, it must be accessible as
`/usr/doc//changelog.gz'. If the upstream changelog file is HTML
formatted, it must be accessible as `/usr/doc//changelog.html.gz'.
This went in
On Wed, Jul 07, 1999 at 10:33:10AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Joseph Carter wrote:
> > In the case of /usr/share/man, we have already a sane transition. It's
> > already in use by a number of packages.
>
> What is it? I'd love to make debhelper start using that directory by
> default. (And BTW, is
Has anyone tried to package something that doesn't really get installed?
What I mean...
I've got a few wcripts I use to generate email responses from CVS when
something gets checked in. This would be, I think, neat to offer to others
but since the scripts get put into CVSROOT replacing some of th
On Wed, 07 Jul 1999, Santiago Vila wrote:
> However, if we convert 90%, 80% or just 20% of them (if the most
> popular ones are included in that 20%), then it would not be such a
> disaster, IMHO.
IMHO only 0% or 100% aren't a disaster. Everything else is annoying,
at least for me as a user.
But
Joseph Carter wrote:
> In the case of /usr/share/man, we have already a sane transition. It's
> already in use by a number of packages.
What is it? I'd love to make debhelper start using that directory by
default. (And BTW, is /usr/share/X11R6/man supposed to be used for X man
pages?)
> Did we c
On Wed, Jul 07, 1999 at 04:59:39PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Changes:
> debhelper (2.0.09) unstable; urgency=low
> .
>* dh_compress: added some FHS support. Though debhelper doesn't put
>stuff there (and won't until people come up with a general transition
>strategy or decide
Norbert Nemec wrote:
> Ok, but the problem I see, is that you are forced to answer all the
> questions right there in the middle of the installation. If you don't want
> to (or can't) decide right there, there is oten no possibility to put it up
> for later. If you make a mistake, it is often not t
Norbert Nemec wrote:
> IMO, packages should under no circumstances complain
> about anything if it is avoidable at all. No matter if there is a automatic
> configuration system or not. We should simply make it policy that a package
> should always install to some safe state without asking any quest
On Wed, 7 Jul 1999, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Jul 1999, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> > > With this we have the following four stages:
>
> > For people not using helper tools (there are many of them), this
> > means *double* work for every package, because you have first to
> > provide sym
On Wed, Jul 07, 1999 at 03:46:15PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 1999 at 08:03:19AM +, Norbert Nemec wrote:
> > I do not talk about where packages should get their configuration
> > information from, I did talk about what they do, if they do not have the
> > information necessar
On Wed, Jul 07, 1999 at 11:42:16AM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> > There are reasonable defaults for all these things, and they can all
> > be fixed after install. But it seems to me that the possibility of
> > having your system suddenly get trashed for no apparent reason makes
> > the nagging
On Wed, 07 Jul 1999, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > With this we have the following four stages:
> For people not using helper tools (there are many of them), this
> means *double* work for every package, because you have first to
> provide symlinks and then you have to remove them.
>
> I do not think
On Wed, 7 Jul 1999, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> With this we have the following four stages:
>
> [snipped]
For people not using helper tools (there are many of them), this means
*double* work for every package, because you have first to provide
symlinks and then you have to remove them.
I do not
On Tue, 06 Jul 1999, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > I would prefer a way using postinst or dpkg to provide the
> > symlinks to be able to remove them at some point in the future
> > without uploading all packages (with the symlink removed) again.
> > But at the moment I don't fully know how to do thi
Anthony Towns writes:
> As an example, what would happen to netbase's postinst questions and
> comments? It currently warns about stopping the portmapper (and thus
> possibly doing horrible things to any rpc processes, such as NFS), it
> asks if you want to add some IPv6 entries to /etc/hostsc (
Norbert Nemec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I do not talk about where packages should get their configuration
> information from, I did talk about what they do, if they do not have the
> information necessary. (And even with he perfect autoconfig system, there
> will be stuations when the packages
Anthony Towns writes:
> [1 ]
> On Wed, Jul 07, 1999 at 08:03:19AM +, Norbert Nemec wrote:
> > IMO, packages should under no circumstances complain
> > about anything if it is avoidable at all.
>
> As an example, what would happen to netbase's postinst questions and
> comments? It currently
On Wed, Jul 07, 1999 at 08:03:19AM +, Norbert Nemec wrote:
> I do not talk about where packages should get their configuration
> information from, I did talk about what they do, if they do not have the
> information necessary. (And even with he perfect autoconfig system, there
> will be stuatio
Ok, thanks for your reactions. I know, guys like me can get on ones
nerves... :-)
I'm moving this thread to debian-policy, where I should have started it
rigth at the beginning. Please reply there.
I knew there would be people working on that problem, but actually, my idea
goes into some complete
On 05-Jul-99, 15:23 (CDT), Roland Rosenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Presumed that _all_ packages for _all_ architectures are FHS compliant
> at the moment we release 2.2. I fear, that this isn't possible if we
> want to release potato in the next half year.
>
> [and]
>
> I would prefer
29 matches
Mail list logo
