Hi,
>>"Jason" == Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jason> Well, I haven't seen a patch to modify dinstall and I haven't
Jason> seen a patch to modify dselect+apt either - so there is
Jason> definately lots of work to still be done by someone.
You are right. What is out there
On Sat, 7 Aug 1999, Chris Davis wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 02:18:41AM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > > If this is not acceptable, the amendment
> > > should be marked as rejected.
> >
> > > * If so, what syntax should we use?
> > > - My choice would be the "package (>
On 7 Aug 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I think you misunderstand. "without any modification to any
> existing packages, and hence policy.". As I read it, that means that
> no packages need be modified, and thus this is not policy. And such is
> the case.
That's kinda what I thought
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > * If so, what syntax should we use?
> > - My choice would be the "package (>= 42 i386)" syntax,
> > as it's the least intrusive choice.
>
> allright. But allow a seperator between version number and arch, like
> "(>= 42, i386)" that's a bit easier on th
On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 11:31:16AM -0400, Chris Davis wrote:
> > > * If so, what syntax should we use?
> > > - My choice would be the "package (>= 42 i386)" syntax,
> > > as it's the least intrusive choice.
> >
> > allright. But allow a seperator between version number and arch, like
On Sat, 7 Aug 1999, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 02:18:41AM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > If this is not acceptable, the amendment
> > should be marked as rejected.
>
> > * If so, what syntax should we use?
> > - My choice would be the "package (>= 42 i38
(Note: I wrote my second reply before polling my mail, so it is a bit out of
sync to this mail :)
On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 05:33:32PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 04:08:56PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > Are you actually involved in any of our porting efforts
On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 12:57:21PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 06, 1999 at 05:00:27PM -0700, Joel Klecker wrote:
> > Well, I *need* that to represent glibc's source depends correctly.
>
> Do you?
I know that I already responded, but this is important enough for me to pull
a
On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 04:08:56PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Are you actually involved in any of our porting efforts?
No, as I don't have the required hardware.
> or at least check one of the mailing lists frequently, to learn what
> is involved.
I lurk on several Hurd lists, including de
On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 12:57:21PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 06, 1999 at 05:00:27PM -0700, Joel Klecker wrote:
> > Well, I *need* that to represent glibc's source depends correctly.
>
> Do you?
Yes, he does.
> > It'd be rediculous for a Debian GNU/HURD system to need
>
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> * Are Build-Conflicts really necessary?
> - they appear to be, reading the current list
> of build-dependencies used by sbuild.
Yes, as Roman pointed out: lprng provides lpr but some package (I don't
remember which one it was) needs the real lpr
On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 02:18:41AM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> If this is not acceptable, the amendment
> should be marked as rejected.
Na, better not. Let's hammer this one in shape now :)
> * Are Build-Conflicts really necessary?
> - they appear to be, reading the current
On Fri, Aug 06, 1999 at 05:00:27PM -0700, Joel Klecker wrote:
> Well, I *need* that to represent glibc's source depends correctly.
Do you?
> It'd be rediculous for a Debian GNU/HURD system to need
> "kernel-headers-2.2.10" to be installed for glibc's build depends to
> be satisfied, and equally
Hi,
>>"Chris" == Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I have a couple of things to say about this proposal. I think
>> that we have a bad track record when it comes to merely deferring the
>> issue until a latter date (I point to the a
Hi,
>>"Joseph" == Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joseph> But it has been abused, quite seriously. Popularity contests
Joseph> HAVE been used to defeat sound technical solution to a purely
Joseph> technical problem. Given that the policy guidelines are not
Joseph> meant to resolve
Hi,
>>"Jason" == Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jason> On Sat, 7 Aug 1999, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> The discussion in the bug report seems to have reached the conclusion
>> that this can be handled simply by modifications to dinstall and apt
>> (or other dselect methods as applicab
Hi,
>>"Jim" == Jim Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jim> If this is to be done by adding to how packages are made, it
Jim> definitely belongs in policy, because ALL packages would then have to
Jim> adhere to it. But if there is a way to offer disk usage information
Jim> about packages withou
>
> Date:Fri, 06 Aug 1999 19:18:32 MDT
> To: debian-policy@lists.debian.org
> cc: Debian Policy List
> From:Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Bug#37999: du -S'ing the archive (was: Re: weekly policy summary)
>
> On Sat, 7 Aug 1999, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> > Th
On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 10:39:13AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Method for shlibs to work with libfoo.so (#42236)
> > * Under discussion.
> > * Proposed by Joseph Carter.
> > * This is a proposal to make binary-only shared libs that have no
> > soname work with dpkh-shlibdeps. The idea
On Fri, Aug 06, 1999 at 07:11:57PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > First, this is horrible and abhorrent, and unversioned libraries shouldn't
> > ever happen, and other packages shouldn't start depending on them and
> > icky icky icky icky ewww.
>
> Maybe I'm just being simple, but couldn't one
On Sat, 7 Aug 1999, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The discussion in the bug report seems to have reached the conclusion
> that this can be handled simply by modifications to dinstall and apt
> (or other dselect methods as applicable): that is, to have dinstall
> generate a DiskUsage.gz file along with
Anthony Towns wrote:
> As such, perhaps this should be reassigned as a wishlist bug against
> ftp.debian.org and apt?
Perhaps, but it is not likely to be implemented unless someone supplies
patches.
Richard Braakman
On Fri, Aug 06, 1999 at 03:46:34PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Method for shlibs to work with libfoo.so (#42236)
> * Under discussion.
> * Proposed by Joseph Carter.
> * This is a proposal to make binary-only shared libs that have no
> soname work with dpkh-shlibdeps. The idea is to detect
On Sat, 7 Aug 1999, Anthony Towns wrote:
> First, this is horrible and abhorrent, and unversioned libraries shouldn't
> ever happen, and other packages shouldn't start depending on them and
> icky icky icky icky ewww.
Maybe I'm just being simple, but couldn't one simply modify the binary to
inc
> A pre-install required space checking mechanism for Debian packages
> (#37999)
> * Old.
> * Proposed on 19 May 1999 by Manoj Srivastava.
> * The idea is to enable tools like apt to check if a set of packages
> will fit on a disk, taking various partitions into account. This
> will r
On Fri, Aug 06, 1999 at 03:46:34PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Method for shlibs to work with libfoo.so (#42236)
> * Under discussion.
> * Proposed by Joseph Carter.
> * This is a proposal to make binary-only shared libs that have no
> soname work with dpkh-shlibdeps. The idea is to detect
On Fri, Aug 06, 1999 at 03:46:34PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Correct section 3.3 to take account of file-rc (#41547)
> * Proposed by Julian Gilbey; seconded by Roland Rosenfeld.
> * Part of policy doesn't make sense if file-rc is being used. This
> proposal is to clean it up so it does make
On Fri, Aug 06, 1999 at 04:21:40PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > Why do you think that we couldn't make a decision now?
>
> Because we haven't been able to do so in the last few weeks.
What is now done is AFAIK in the hands of the technical committee.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTEC
On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 02:18:41AM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> * Are Build-Conflicts really necessary?
> - they appear to be, reading the current list
> of build-dependencies used by sbuild.
Perhaps it'd be a good idea to allow them, but strongly encourage packages
not
On Fri, Aug 06, 1999 at 03:46:34PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Virtual package 'ispell-dictionary'
> * Proposed by Santiago Vila; seconded by Julian Gilbey.
> * add ispell-dictionary to the list of virtual packages for
> "Anything providing a dictionary suitable for ispell".
I second this pr
On Fri, Aug 06, 1999 at 11:57:16AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> 2) People used the `formal objection' mechanism to stop the answer just
> >> because the didn't like. I don't think this was right. And the people who
> >> did it are starting to realize that too.. =)
>
> Joseph> too-many-c
At 16:02 -0700 1999-08-04, Chris Waters wrote:
Unlike most other FHS-mandated changes, an inconsistency here will be
*highly* visible, and probably very annoying to our users.
Whatever, they can deal.
It's going to be a while before we can claim FHS compliance in any
case. We have a lot of c
At 02:18 +0300 1999-08-07, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
* Do we need to conditionalize the build dependencies based
on architectures?
- Joel Klecker and Marcus Brinkmann seem to think so.
I'm not convinced yet.
Well, I *need* that to represent glibc's source depends correc
33 matches
Mail list logo
