Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 37254 debian-policy, dpkg
Bug#37254: dpkg: update-alternatives madness
Bug reassigned from package `dpkg' to `debian-policy, dpkg'.
> severity 37254 normal
Bug#37254: dpkg: update-alternatives madness
Severity set to `normal'.
> quit
Stopping
reassign 37254 debian-policy, dpkg
severity 37254 normal
quit
I agree that update-alternatives shouldn't put an alternative into
manual mode because a _target_ disappeared unexpectedly. I'll look
into this eventually.
But, the problem doesn't happen if you call update-alternatives in the
prerm,
Chris Waters wrote:
> Programs like dwww and dhelp will already have to be modified to look
> in both places, since users may have a mixture of old and new packages
> installed even after we make the transition to policy 4.x.
>
> Which leaves the "user is used to '/usr/doc'" objection, which is a
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> dpkg may well have problems with the symlink, so any
> packages still installing in /usr/doc/ could cause problems
> with dpkg. Since the move is likely to take a long time, this grand
> move-in-one-fell-swoop is likely to be fraught with problems.
After read
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.0.0.0
Severity: wishlist
Manoj requested that I submit this as a separate proposal so that it
doesn't get lost.
The following was originally posted on the thread discussing the
/usr/doc -> /usr/share/doc move and the problems associated with it.
Julian
-
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>"Chris" == Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Chris> Which leaves the "user is used to '/usr/doc'" objection, which is a
> Chris> *purely* aesthetic objection, not a technical one
> You are missing the point. It is not that users
In section 2.1 of the menu policy ( Preferred menu structure )
under Apps:
Hammradio
anything relating to ham radio
Hammradio should be spelled with one 'm'.
Thanks,
Joop
--
Joop Stakenborg PA4TU, ex-PA3ABA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Linux Hamradio Applications and Utiliti
Marcus's argument here is most compelling. It is not the present cost
of Manoj's proposal that is prohibitive, it is the future cost of all
those prerm scripts. And so, I formally object to this proposal.
However, Manoj's arguments against other ways of moving to
/usr/share/doc still hold: any o
Hi,
>>"Steve" == Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Steve> I think I agree with this, the effort and additional cruft is to big
Steve> for the benefit.
Do you formally object to the proposal?
Steve> And it seems to me a that a script that maintained
Steve> /usr/doc/whateve
Hi,
>>"Peter" == Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> ps. How stupid do you think I am?
Peter> Why would you think that I think you are stupid?
You indicated that in one mail message I argued that all
packages can have the postinst changed in a jiffy, and, in another,
on
Hi,
>>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marcus> A little script that creates symlinks in /usr/doc for each
Marcus> directory in /usr/share/doc was already posted, we could
Marcus> advertise it to our users who really want that.
Please propose this as a separate p
Hi,
>>"Julian" == Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Julian> Maybe I can suggest an alternative which will
Julian> - not require packages to add anything to their maintainer scripts
Julian> - not break the majority of packages, and
Julian> - not create a forest of symlinks (which mig
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> dpkg may well have problems with the symlink, so any packages still
> installing in /usr/doc/ could cause problems with dpkg.
> Since the move is likely to take a long time, this grand
> move-in-one-fell-swoop is likely to be fraught with problems.
This is a weak argume
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Peter" == Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Peter> Manoj, you can't argue that all developers can quickly add a
> Peter> postinst script, and argue a few posts earlier that it will take
> Peter> 18 months for all packages to get done. Can yo
>> "Kristoffer" == Kristoffer Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Kristoffer> I see this "problem" as an advantage: the user should
Kristoffer> *know* that removing a certain package means that his
Kristoffer> system no longer does the desired task.
Kristoffer> So -- I disagree!
This is not complet
Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> > Manoj, you can't argue that all developers can quickly add a
> > postinst script, and argue a few posts earlier that it will take 18
> > months for all packages to get done. Can you?
>
> He can. Please have a look at
Martin Bialasinski proposes:
> I am working on converting the tasks and profiles from the base
> installation into ordinary packages.
I've always wanted this, thanks for the investment :)
> This will make the thing easier to manage, and offer these packages
> also for later installation.
Indeed
Hi,
> Richard> I think the symlink should be absolute, not relative.
> Richard> /usr/doc is a likely directory to be symlinked to somewhere
> Richard> else by the sysadmin (for example, to deal with this
> Richard> transition :-), and the normal reason for using relative
> Richard> links (tha
On 19-Jul-99, 19:41 (CDT), Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The price is actually higher. Richard already pointed out some corrections
> to your proposal, which add complication.
>
> But the real expense is elsewhere. I wonder why this hasn't come up before,
> but here it is:
>
>
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Richard> This seems unnecessarily complex. You do not need to change
> Richard> the directory.
>
> Well, it makes me feel better when creating symbolic links.
Okay, a matter of taste :) I find it hard to read scripts that change
directories, and I also think
Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Don't use absolute links.
> >From policy version 2.5.0.0:
>
> 4.5. Symbolic links
> ---
>
> In general, symbolic links within a toplevel directory should be
> relative, and symbolic links pointing from one toplevel directory into
> another
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 11:23:59PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Santiago> This is a high price to pay, very high.
>
> Adding a stanza to a couple of files too high a price to pay?
The price is actually higher. Richar
22 matches
Mail list logo
