I don't know how important this is, but there's a de-facto
virtual package, ispell-dictionary, in use for quite some
time by the ispell and i* dictionary packages, but not
listed in
ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian/doc/package-developer/virtual-package-names-list.text
I'd suggest we add (under Misc
Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Well, since the copyright holders have not been actively
> involved in the newest phase of the manual.Should I make it copyright
> Debian? the debian policy list? spi?
Since Debian legally doesn't exist you should probably assign the
copyright to SPI
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 25533 fixed
Bug#25533: [OLD PROPOSAL] Debian-policy should probably contain the FHS standard
Severity set to `fixed'.
> severity 26159 fixed
Bug#26159: [OLD PROPOSAL] Contact address for virtual package name list
Severity set to `fixed'.
> se
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Could the people in the CC: field so assign the copyrights?
I'm not sure mine needs it; my proposal was basically copied (with
some minor editing) from /usr/doc/menu/menu.sgml. But I'm certainly
willing to do so if necessary. Just let me kn
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Please hold off that for a week or so. There are
> constitutional methods for getting contentious stuff into the plicy
> document, and this seems like an ideal scenario for one of them.
It may be too late. We *NEED* consensus on this sort
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 01:39:14PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I think I am beginning to think that the formal objection
> clause is a mistake. Here you are, cutting off any discussion on
> this, no effort to seek a compromise, just a flat, uncompromising
> ultimatum that shall kill
Hi,
This is not a personal attack on Antti-Juhani, but just
happens to be the latest example of a distressing trend that is
gaining popularity in this group, which, unless moderated, shall
nullify the efficacy of an informal policy building mechanism.
>>"Antti-Juhani" == Antti-Juhani
Hi,
>>"Richard" == Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Richard> But if every Debian installation should have the same values, then
Richard> obviously they are not configuration files :-)
Well, site specific config files, I guess. There are
somesettings common to a site (nntp s
Joseph Carter wrote:
> Just enough people don't like symlinks to make that not a consensus.
>
> Just enough people don't like trying to move entire trees to make that not
> a consensus.
>
> Just enough people want us not to move anything at all (screw the FHS and
> standards, right? (can you tel
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Joey> I'm trying to decide if I should just give up and make
> Joey> debhelper use the FHS directories with no transition.
>
> Please hold off that for a week or so. There are
> constitutional methods for getting contentious stuff into the plicy
> document, an
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 05:28:00AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> I'd like to assume some common sense on the part of developers.
Specifications (and that's what Policy is) should never assume anything
it doesn't have to assume - too many things can go wrong (like, people
having different definitio
Anthony Towns wrote:
> I'd assume by "host specific" the FHS means on a host-host basis. That is,
> if two hosts running the same version of the same OS (but with different
> admins with different views on how things Should Be Done, say) can reasonably
> have different configs, then those configs a
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 02:08:25PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > I don't think we should try to enforce that people use /var/mail now, it's
> > just good to get it into the policy now.
>
> So: Could you modify your proposal so that the change from /var/spool/mail
> to /var/mail is postponed afte
On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 01:49:13PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > > I dislike the idea of packages pre-depending on a specific version of
> > > > base-files, this imposes a certain order in the upgrade.
> > > >
> > > > I think there is no hurry and w
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 01:49:13PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > I dislike the idea of packages pre-depending on a specific version of
> > > base-files, this imposes a certain order in the upgrade.
> > >
> > > I think there is no hurry and we should stick to /var/spool/mail for
> > > potato.
>
On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 01:20:31PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > I'd say actually that any package using /var/mail should depend on the
> > > approprate base-files and we could do this for potato even.
> >
> > You would have to use Pre-Depends, beca
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 01:20:31PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > I'd say actually that any package using /var/mail should depend on the
> > approprate base-files and we could do this for potato even.
>
> You would have to use Pre-Depends, because as soon as you
> unpack a mail reader using /var/
On 28 Jul 1999, Gordon Matzigkeit wrote:
> > Joseph Carter writes:
> [...]
>
> JC> I propose that we create a safe migration path between
> JC> /var/spool/mail and /var/mail.
>
> I second this proposal.
>
> FWIW, I was hoping that an identical solution would be proposed for
> /usr/doc vs.
On Tue, 27 Jul 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 1999 at 01:45:47PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > If we agree on this, a possible plan would be:
> >
> > potato:
> > Packages reference /var/spool/mail internally.
> > base-files creates a symlink /var/mail -> /var/spool/mail
> >
>
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 06:45:04PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Any configuration files created or used by your package should reside
> in `/etc'. If there are several you should consider creating a
> subdirectory named after your package.
> However, the FHS only says that host-spe
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 01:49:30AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Joseph> To be quite honest Joey, at this point I'd suggest you just
> Joseph> take one of the workable solutions we've discussed and just
> Joseph> implement the damned things in debhelper, and make it known
> Joseph> how you'v
Section 4.7 of policy 2.5.0.0 says
4.7. Configuration files
Any configuration files created or used by your package should reside
in `/etc'. If there are several you should consider creating a
subdirectory named after your package.
However, the FHS only sa
Hi,
>>"Joseph" == Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joseph> To be quite honest Joey, at this point I'd suggest you just
Joseph> take one of the workable solutions we've discussed and just
Joseph> implement the damned things in debhelper, and make it known
Joseph> how you've done it. F
I missed last week's summary. This week's will happen very late friday
night, or sunday. Having email problems..
--
see shy jo
Hi,
>>"Gord" == Gordon Matzigkeit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
"Steve" == Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Steve> I'd be happy to see "Debian". "The Debian Policy List" seems
Steve> too nebulous, and SPI seems to out-of-the-loop.
Gord> Just don't forget that copyright can only
Hi,
>>"Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joey> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> There is no policy prohibiting such a move, on the ocntrary,
>> policy dictates that a move like that happen.
Joey> So is it your opinion that we should just give up and move?
Almost ;-). I do thi
On Wed, Jul 28, 1999 at 03:26:22PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Giuliano> Unfortunately, various people have pre-empted the policy
> > Giuliano> discussion and have started using /usr/share/doc already.
> >
> > There is no policy prohibiting such a move, on the ocntrary,
> > policy dicta
27 matches
Mail list logo
