Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Fourth, Raul also points out that debian-policy isn't a constitutional
> > body, it can only act under the auspices of the technical committee. That
> > is, just because we reach a consensus on -policy how to deal with an
> > issue, we can't suddenly declare 1000s of packag
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.0.1.1
Severity: normal
The Debian policy is not very clear in the definition of the way,
mailbox locking should be implemented. It only points to a "reference
implementation" (liblockfile), which is said to be NFS-safe, but it
isn't with Linux kernel 2.2.* (see
On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Andreas Jellinghaus wrote:
> it is very easy in this case: don't use static id's. use dynamic.
I'm all for it, I'll patch what's needed and send it upstream etc.
> this is easy: use useradd or adduser to create an entry in /etc/passwd.
> these programs should return an error
On Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 12:50:57PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> That would be awful. Having to wait while something is rubberstamped,
> just to get around an issue of protocol -- that just adds a useless
> layer to something that is already ponderous. This is a volunteer
> project, not a phon
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Fourth, Raul also points out that debian-policy isn't a constitutional
> body, it can only act under the auspices of the technical committee. That
> is, just because we reach a consensus on -policy how to deal with an
> issue, we can't suddenly declare 1000s of packages [2] b
On Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 03:01:58AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > "Documentation must be accessible from /usr/doc/.
> > In order to ease the transition to FHS, packages should
> > put documentation in /usr/share/doc/, and install a
> > symlink from /usr/doc/ -> /usr/share/doc/. D
Anthony Towns writes:
> I'm probably making to grandiose a claim here, but I think this is the
> proper way of handling the difference of opinion between Chris (and kin)
> and Manoj (and kith) about mentioning releases by names and doing things
> all at once and such.
I don't think that the diff
On Aug 27, Seth R Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Please forgive someone new to debian -- the benefits of moving to Maildir
>format for NFS-based systems seems obvious, if it removes lock-contention
>problems. However, wouldn't that mean mutt would be the only mailreader
>supplied with Debi
On Aug 27, Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Don't you even... (I use that sort of system here on this machine, but it
>should NOT be the default!) Before you even consider that solution you
>need to address people who don't have a ~ to put a mailbox in (ie a mail
On debian every user
Hello world,
By chance I discovered Klee's debian-ctte list archive on master [0]. By
luck, it was world readable so I snarfed a copy. I'm shocked and amazed
to find that the -ctte actually has done stuff. And pleased.
So first, my congratulations to Raul on his acclamation as techinical
committe
On Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 01:39:38PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Active proposals
>
> Section 3.2 should not allow static user ids (except root=0) (#43483)
> * Under discussion.
> * Proposed by Andreas Jellinghaus.
> * Policy curren
11 matches
Mail list logo
