Re: core recovery tools, apt-get, and dpkg should be static

1999-08-16 Thread Carl R. Witty
Justin Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > HOW TO MAKE DEBIAN LESS FRAGILE: > > All the core system tools, including the package manager (apt_get > and dpkg) should be available as static binaries rather than dynamic > executables. ... > I previously raised this issue in the devel list, and me

Bug#43077: [Proposal]: Remove the incompatibility argument from 5.1

1999-08-16 Thread Matthias Klose
Package: debian-policy Severity: wishlist > 5.1. Architecture specification strings > --- > If a program needs to specify an _architecture specification string_ > in some place, the following format has to be used: > > - > >

Re: core recovery tools, apt-get, and dpkg should be static

1999-08-16 Thread Steve Willer
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > "The smallest GLIBC static binary is 200k and that number seems to double > every release!" Let's say you would be adding 200K per system binary. Justin had a list of 26 binaries. That would be an extra 5MB of total disk space used up. The entire con

Processed: Bug#41232: debian-policy: [ACCEPTED] Build-time dependencies on binary packages

1999-08-16 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > retitle 41232 [ACCEPTED] Build-time dependencies on binary packages Bug#41232: [AMENDMENT 1999-07-23] Build-time dependencies on binary packages Changed bug title. > forwarded 41232 debian-policy@lists.debian.org Bug#41232: [ACCEPTED] Build-time depend

Bug#41232: debian-policy: [ACCEPTED] Build-time dependencies on binary packages

1999-08-16 Thread Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho
retitle 41232 [ACCEPTED] Build-time dependencies on binary packages forwarded 41232 debian-policy@lists.debian.org thanks I think it is safe to say this amendment is accepted. If you don't agree, speak up *now*. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%

Re: core recovery tools, apt-get, and dpkg should be static

1999-08-16 Thread Jason Gunthorpe
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Justin Wells wrote: > responses. Here are refutations of many of the common counter-arguments: You forgot: "The smallest GLIBC static binary is 200k and that number seems to double every release!" I know the BSD's come in with about a 40k overhead for a small static binary

core recovery tools, apt-get, and dpkg should be static

1999-08-16 Thread Justin Wells
(This discussion was originally in the devel list, I am restating my views here because it is actually a policy issue.) HOW TO MAKE DEBIAN LESS FRAGILE: All the core system tools, including the package manager (apt_get and dpkg) should be available as static binaries rather than dynamic execu

Re: I'd like to coordinate a major update of stable

1999-08-16 Thread paulwade
On 16 Aug 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Whatever happened to the idea of having pools of package > (presented by aj)? The idea was that packages always be uploaded to > an unstable ``pool'' of packages. After meeting vertain criteria > (minimuym time in unstable with no bugs, or no im

Re: I'd like to coordinate a major update of stable

1999-08-16 Thread Manoj Srivastava
Hi, >>"Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Joey> The idea is to update more than just the usual security Joey> updates, but avoid any new code that hasn't been tested for 2 Joey> to 4 months already. So this release would include X 3.3.3, Joey> kernel 2.2.x (where x is probably 7 wi

Re: Bug#42477: PROPOSED} delay the /usr/doc transition till after potato

1999-08-16 Thread Santiago Vila
On 15 Aug 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Santiago> This has not happened in this case. We decided to switch > Santiago> from FSSTND to FHS, which includes switching from /usr/doc > Santiago> to /usr/share/doc, and nobody objected,

Re: [PROPOSAL] Directories for local initialization scripts

1999-08-16 Thread Gilbert Laycock
Julio> To accommodate local initialization scripts in Debian, one must Julio> add these scripts in /etc/init.d and update-rc.d. Thus scripts Julio> installed by packages and local scripts to share the same Julio> directories. Why is this method a problem? -- Gilbert Laycock em

Re: Processed: Re: *wav* executable are not setgid audio.

1999-08-16 Thread Joseph Carter
On Fri, Aug 13, 1999 at 09:46:23AM -0500, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > > reassign 42907 debian-policy > Bug#42907: *wav* executable are not setgid audio. > Bug reassigned from package `wavtools' to `debian-policy'. First off, these programs should NOT be sgid anything! The whole point of g

Re: [PROPOSAL] Directories for local initialization scripts

1999-08-16 Thread Roland Rosenfeld
On Sun, 15 Aug 1999, Julio wrote: > > > I propose the creation of some directories to hold the local > > > initialization scripts and separate them from the initialization > > > scripts installed by packages. One possible approach would be to > > > use /usr/local/etc/init.d or /etc/rc.local to con

Re: [PROPOSAL] Directories for local initialization scripts

1999-08-16 Thread Anthony Towns
On Sat, Aug 14, 1999 at 06:20:04PM -0300, Julio wrote: > I propose the creation of some directories to hold the local initialization > scripts and separate them from the initialization scripts installed by > packages. One possible approach would be to use /usr/local/etc/init.d or > /etc/rc.local

Re: Bug#42477: PROPOSED} delay the /usr/doc transition till after potato

1999-08-16 Thread Manoj Srivastava
Hi, >>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Santiago> On 10 Aug 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> Hi, >> >>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Santiago> If we followed this rule of "only object in extreme circumstances", Santiago> we could be drawing