On Wed, Aug 18, 1999 at 04:25:48PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> First of all, I'm still not convinced that this is a technical issue,
> as I mentioned in my objection to Manoj's proposal. The information
> is just as available whether it's found in one location or two, so
> I don't see any technica
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (3) The message from Wichert was incomplete -- the technical committee
> does not do detailed design work. However, two people have stepped
> up with proposals to address that lack. Briefly: Manoj Srivasta
> has proposed a mechanism which would allow us
Hi folks,
I am going to take some time off from the project. Recent
developments in the real world have increased the time demands
that I must face, as well as increasing the stress levels. At the
same time, the current situations I am involved in in the project
have ahd their share in
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Why would we have architecture specific examples? The only reason I can
> think of is to help specify a data format that differs across platforms
> (example programs should be given in source).
Think about things like example data files with endian issues.
> But in this cas
On Wed, Aug 18, 1999 at 02:28:36PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Hello Technical Committee.
>
> This message from Wichert was posted nearly two weeks ago.
Yes.
> Which is the current state of things?
(1) The technical committee does not have a chairman yet, so is not
able to properly vote on an
On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, Julio wrote:
> > Add a directory /etc/init.local (or maybe /etc/init.d.local?)
> > for locally installed init scripts, which can be handled by
> > update-rc.d like the script in /etc/init.d.
> >Okay, with this proposal I have less problems than with the initial
> >one,
Ian proposes the following wrt /usr/doc vs /usr/share/doc:
> * Any dpkg bug in this area be fixed. If I can figure out what people
> claim the bug is I'll fix it. (I won't build an NMU, but we seem to
> have no shortage of people willing to do dpkg NMUs.)
The bug was explained to me in the seco
On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, Wichert Akkerman - Debian Project Leader wrote:
> [...]
> Luckily the constitution provides us with a way to solve this: the
> Technical Committee can be asked to decide on a strategy which people
> will have to follow. I hereby ask them to study this and come up with a
> strat
On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, Ian Jackson wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jul 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > To do this I suggest we ammend policy first by replacing all existing
> > instances of /var/spool/mail with /var/mail and then changing the second
> > paragraph of section 5.6 which currently reads
>
> I objec
On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 12:53:34PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> How about this:
> Any examples (configurations, source files, whatever), should be
> installed in a directory /usr/share/doc//examples'. These
> files should not be referenced by any program--they're there
> for the benefi
Ben Collins wrote:
> This group will go through the archive (either manually or using
> internally created scripts) and generate detailed lists of dangling
> source/packages and post them for removal via the BTS and/or direct email
> to the archive maintainers.
This is not necessary. We have such
At 10:22 AM 8/17/99 +0200, you wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Julio wrote:
> >I don't see why there should be any discrimination of local init
> >scripts, which only can be executed in rcS.d or after all other
> >scripts. This is a restriction which isn't necessary and doesn't
> >make sense.
> I a
On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, Steve Willer wrote:
> >From a policy point of view, as far as I can tell, the bash failure is due
> to a dpkg bug, isn't it? I'm not completely sure if it's readline or bash
> that got removed, but my reading of the "Essential packages" section tells
It's a strange APT featu
On 17 Aug 1999, Chris Waters wrote:
> > But I think it's reasonable to change the behavior on new systems as
> > long as that change is well documented.
>
> I think people will find it confusing if Debian is the only distro
> that doesn't have bash as /bin/sh by default, and so I'd *rather* keep
On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I'm not sure yet what the test cases people are presenting are. dpkg
> is not supposed ever to remove a nonempty directory and replace it
> with a symlink to a different directory. If someone can reproduce it
> doing this I'd be very interested.
One (t
Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 01:44:00PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > *compliance* is a big issue to me, but I'd be open to allowing the use
> > of ash as /bin/sh *as an option*. Oh wait, it already is! :-)
> No it's not. Every bash upgrade blows it away w
Justin Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am not concerned with full POSIX complience for /bin/sh
Well, I am. Why are your concerns more important than mine?
> ash has a long history as a /bin/sh shell, since all the *BSD unixes
> use it as /bin/sh.
I don't consider the BSD's to be a good
Justin Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well Chris you obviously only run desktop systems [...]
Sheesh, talk about missing the point *completely*!
No, I've been known to run systems remotely. And I usually try to
install sash on systems where I may *need* to do remote repairs.
That doesn't
18 matches
Mail list logo
