Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 40180 fixed
Bug#40180: packaging manual typo
Severity set to `fixed'.
> quit
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Ian Jackson
(administrator, Debian bugs database)
At 19:53 -0700 1999-08-18, Joseph Carter wrote:
Because even some free programs use shlib plugins without sonames and it'd
be better to maintain compatibility than to break it simply because we
would prefer to have sonames?
shared objects without sonames are not shared libraries, and thus do
n
I'm replying to two at once here, in the interest of efficiency.
Chris Waters wrote:
> Yes, that's why I suggest that we wait till after Potato, and start
> the changeover at the *beginning* of a release cycle. That way we
> have as much time as possible.
That was the plan the previous two relea
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That last sentence is an error. When all packages have moved to
> /usr/share/doc, we can drop the symlink handling code from the
> postinst and prerm, with no loss.
Er, no, not if the symlink handling is *in* the postinst/prerm. If
it's there, then
Anthony Towns writes:
> > As long as all the docs are in the
> > same place in a stable release, who *cares* what kind of ugliness was
> > involved in moving them? Unstable is *supposed* to be, er, unstable.
> Most of us have a certain selfish interest it keeping unstable as pleasant
> as possi
On Thu, Aug 19, 1999 at 12:54:35AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > [1 ]
> > 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.
> > "How do we keep all th
Chris Waters wrote:
> *None* of the proposals (I think we're up to four now) seem to have
> *major* problems. However, the symlinks seem unnecessary to me,
> *unless* we want to make unstable more consistent, at the cost of
> making stable somewhat uglier, and unless we want to add *permanent*
> o
Anthony Towns writes:
> [1 ]
> 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.
> "How do we keep all the documentation `together' while we physically
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.
"How do we keep all the documentation `together' while we physically move
it from /usr/doc to /usr/share/doc?
On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > * Base-files should be changed.
>
> * Base-files must require that the fixed dpkg is installed.
>
> If base-files doesn't depend/pre-depend on dpkg, downgrading dpkg and
> downgrading any other deb that uses /usr/share/doc will lose all its
> docu
On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 08:39:37PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Instead, I propose that:
> * 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.)
Please fix
Raul Miller wrote:
> The argument is that there may be user authored programs or procedures
> which use the (admittedly simple) /usr/doc interface.
Not may, are. To whit: dwww and, all web servers that follow policy and
export http://localhost/doc
--
see shy jo
On Wed, Aug 18, 1999 at 12:56:23PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > There are reasons for us not to change: it is hard to do right, as the
> > discussion has shown, and if we get it wrong we risk making people's
> > mail systems fall over or even losing mail.
>
> IMHO, the discussion has not shown
On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 08:18:45PM +0100, Ian Jackson 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 object to this proposed chang
On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 08:33:11PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Since the new quake stuff uses this, I will not be uploading any of the
> > glquake stuff to master until such time as this proposal is addressed and
> > accepted or rejected. Not having something like my proposed solution
> > really
Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > No it's not. Every bash upgrade blows it away without notice or comment.
On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 06:20:13PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> Yes, but that's considered to be a bug. I agree that it's a bug that
> *needs* to be fixed. Ok, it's *supposed* t
16 matches
Mail list logo
