On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 12:13:28PM -0400, Mark W. Eichin wrote:
> Last announcement I saw, we were *not* supposed to move things to
> /usr/share until the transition was properly managed on the dpkg side;
> I'm not going to move the emacs info files until I hear otherwise, at
> least.
Not exactly
Dale Scheetz wrote:
> As the rest of the committee seemed to take your proposal as being "not to
> the point" I submit that I'm not the one who "don't get it".
>
> If it isn't "maintain the old location during the transition" then please
> inform my ignorant self, as I may need to change my vote.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>On Thu, 26 Aug 1999, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>> The solution for this problem is to use fcntl(), because Linux 2.2.*
>> flushes the cache of a file in the moment when it is locked using
>> fcntl().
>>
>> But only fcnt
On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
> Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > And rightly so ;-) The committee spent some time debating just exactly
> > what the issue really was. I resolved it to be "least surprise" for users
> > by retaining /usr/doc during the transition.
>
> Nope, you don't get it.
As the
On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> So encourage the other committee members to cast their votes in the
> current ballet before this committee, so we can get on with our lives.
Eh? Come again? You think any of us have lives? :)
Adam
Le Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 03:03:50PM +0200, Jozef Hitzinger écrivait:
> Sorry to repeat the question,
No problem, but you could try to do something realistic and logical.
> What should the package do, when it uses dynamic system ids (recognized by
> name, not numeric value) and encounters a system,
Dale Scheetz wrote:
> And rightly so ;-) The committee spent some time debating just exactly
> what the issue really was. I resolved it to be "least surprise" for users
> by retaining /usr/doc during the transition.
Nope, you don't get it.
--
see shy jo
On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 10:44:49AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Ben" == Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Ben> As a buildd admin, I want to congratulate the original policy on
> Ben> all the wasted cpu cycles it has cost my system by forcing
> Ben> packages to compile wit
On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 06:09:26PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I think sticking with an env will make it much easier for some one to just
> > use dpkg-buildpackage (without modification) and call it like:
> >
> > BUILD_DEBUG=y && dpkg-buildpackage -B
On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 03:44:07PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Raul Miller wrote:
> > First off, I'm not sure it's a good idea for policy to be a rapidly
> > changing entity.
>
> It's not a good idea at all, but as Manoj pointed out it's now changing
> rapidly.
>
> > Debian produc
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think sticking with an env will make it much easier for some one to just
> use dpkg-buildpackage (without modification) and call it like:
>
> BUILD_DEBUG=y && dpkg-buildpackage -B
Just a minor nit. That should be:
BUILD_DEBUG=y dpkg-buildpackage -B
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I notice that mysql-server has the same situation; it creates or takes over
the 'mysql' group and user, in the mysql-server.preinst file.
(If I happened to have a user with that name before installing mysql-server,
I wouldn't be very happy.) I suspect that my
On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 10:17:28AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> There is currently a vote underway in the technical committee. Raul and
> myself have voted, and are waiting for the others on the committee to
> vote.
As has Manoj.
FYI,
--
Raul
Last announcement I saw, we were *not* supposed to move things to
/usr/share until the transition was properly managed on the dpkg side;
I'm not going to move the emacs info files until I hear otherwise, at
least.
However, in this case, all you'd really want is for emacs to search a
path, so it ca
Hi,
>>"Roman" == Roman Hodek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> build-debug: BUILD_DEBUG=y
Roman> Is that a GNU make feature that you can set vars at the place where a
Roman> dependency is expected?
Yes.
File: make.info, Node: Target-specific, Next: Pattern-specific, Prev: Enviro\
nmen
Hi,
>>"Ben" == Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ben> As a buildd admin, I want to congratulate the original policy on
Ben> all the wasted cpu cycles it has cost my system by forcing
Ben> packages to compile with -g even though those same binaries will
Ben> be stripped later of this cost
Hi,
>>"Ben" == Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> No. Just set up the regular build target so that it honours the setting
>> of BUILD_DEBUG and add this to debian/rules:
>>
>> build-debug: BUILD_DEBUG=y
>> build-debug: build
>>
>> You can use other make variables of course.
Ben
Hi,
>>"Jozef" == Jozef Hitzinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jozef> I think we will need list of reserved names, just as now
Jozef> there's list of reserved numbers _and_ names (0-99).
Since a list already exists, why not add the reserved names to
it, with no pre assigned IDs? Then we
On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 02:36:37PM +0200, Roman Hodek wrote:
>
> > build-debug: BUILD_DEBUG=y
>
> Is that a GNU make feature that you can set vars at the place where a
> dependency is expected?
At least it works with GNU make, and it's documented in the node
"Target-specific Variable Values" of
On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 03:03:50PM +0200, Jozef Hitzinger wrote:
> I think we will need list of reserved names, just as now there's list
> of reserved numbers _and_ names (0-99).
I agree.
FWIW, I'd also like to see a list of what the rc3.d start and stop
priorities actually mean, as per the comme
On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Johnie Ingram wrote:
>
> "Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Raul> I guess this means that you didn't read
> Raul>
> http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-devel-announce-9908/msg5.html?
>
> I read it, and I've waited over 20 days, but we're no c
On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 07:27:35AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> I think sticking with an env will make it much easier for some one to just
Of course. I just wanted to point out that it is possible to avoid code
duplication even in a Makefile :-)
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sorry to repeat the question,
but while my call for new static ids was shot down, nobody tried to answer
the question:
What should the package do, when it uses dynamic system ids (recognized by
name, not numeric value) and encounters a system, where the designed name
is already used by someone e
Previously Raul Miller wrote:
> First off, I'm not sure it's a good idea for policy to be a rapidly
> changing entity.
It's not a good idea at all, but as Manoj pointed out it's now changing
rapidly.
> Debian produces packages -- policy is a means to that end.
No, policy is a means of doing qual
Previously Joseph Carter wrote:
> sendmail does not support maildir, but it probably could if someone wrote
> the rule to do it, or it's possible that a code patch could be (or has
> been) written.
Sendmail rules have nothing to do with this, you need a delivery agent
that can do it. Procmail can,
On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 02:55:18PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 11:51:46AM +0200, Roman Hodek wrote:
> > And since the build targets of contain a lot
> > of commands, a second build-debug target often will mean to double
> > most of these commands.
>
> No. Just s
> build-debug: BUILD_DEBUG=y
Is that a GNU make feature that you can set vars at the place where a
dependency is expected?
Roman
On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 11:51:46AM +0200, Roman Hodek wrote:
> And since the build targets of contain a lot
> of commands, a second build-debug target often will mean to double
> most of these commands.
No. Just set up the regular build target so that it honours the setting
of BUILD_DEBUG and add
On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Package: debian-policy, emacs19, glibc-doc
> Version: not known, 19.34-21, 2.1.1-12
>
> I have:
>
> Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge
> | Status=Not/Installed/Config-files/Unpacked/Failed-config/Half-installed
> |/ Err?=(none)/Hold/Reinst-required/X=b
On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 11:11:47AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Shouldn't packages use sensible-editor?
Having VISUAL and EDITOR makes sense on most Unices; having
sensible-editor is Debian specific. Patches that can be usefully sent
upstream seem much better than patches that are likely to f
>
> The package can by default build without -g if it also provides a mechanism
> to easily be rebuilt with debugging information. This can be done by providing
> a "build-debug" make target, or allowing the user to specify "BUILD_DEBUG=yes"
> in the environment while compiling that packa
Shouldn´t packages use sensible-editor?
May the Source be with you.
Goswin
Edward Betts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gordon Matzigkeit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Do you have any tangible examples of an architecture-specific example
> > file? Maybe I haven't been following this thread closely enough,
> > because I've only seen discussion of ``what-if'' scenarios.
>
On Mon, Aug 30, 1999 at 06:25:52PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> The package can by default build without -g if it also provides a mechanism
> to easily be rebuilt with debugging information. This can be done by providing
> a "build-debug" make target, or allowing the user to specify "BUILD_DEBUG=yes
Johnie Ingram wrote:
> The problem is (1) that Policy has made a big change without any kind
> of transition plan, obsoleting all of potato and making it
> incompatible with slink in a noticable way. (Bad for partial
> upgrades.)
>
> The problem is (2) that the issue is no longer under democratic
"Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joey> A hint: nobody ever claimed building packages that used
Joey> /usr/share/doc would be a problem. In fact, as long ago as 2
Joey> years, people were confident debhelper would handle that part of
Joey> the transition very easily. That's not the
"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> I guess this means that you didn't read
Raul>
http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-devel-announce-9908/msg5.html?
I read it, and I've waited over 20 days, but we're no closer to a
solution. Folling the new Policy would at least
Johnie Ingram wrote:
> And I choose not to wait for him, a debhelper thats compliant can be
> tested at:
>
> http://netgod.net/x/debhelper_2.0.21-0.0_all.deb
>
> Only problem found so far is that using it breaks the autobuild
> machines using the /usr/doc debhelper. But if 70% of package
On Mon, Aug 30, 1999 at 11:54:52PM -0400, Johnie Ingram wrote:
> And I choose not to wait for him, a debhelper thats compliant can be
> tested at:
>
> http://netgod.net/x/debhelper_2.0.21-0.0_all.deb
>
> Only problem found so far is that using it breaks the autobuild
> machines using the
"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marcus> Joey Hess did chose not to implement this change yet as he
Marcus> waited for a consensus on the discussion that started about
Marcus> this topic. This rules out 70% of our packages, which are
Marcus> based on debhelper (figure may
On Mon, Aug 30, 1999 at 06:25:52PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> The package can by default build without -g if it also provides a mechanism
> to easily be rebuilt with debugging information.
Well, that rules out X. :)
(Nothing you do with the X source tree is ever both easy and fast.)
--
G. Bra
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 43787 [AMENDMENT 8/30/1999] changing policy on compiling with -g .. a
> better way
Bug#43787: [PROPOSAL] changing policy on compiling with -g .. a better way
Changed bug title.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 43787 debian-policy
Bug#43787: [PROPOSAL] changing policy on compiling with -g .. a better way
Bug reassigned from package `policy' to `debian-policy'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Ian Jackson
Second.
On Mon, Aug 30, 1999 at 06:25:52PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> The package can by default build without -g if it also provides a mechanism
> to easily be rebuilt with debugging information. This can be done by providing
> a "build-debug" make target, or allowing the user to specify "BUIL
As a buildd admin, I want to congratulate the original policy on all the wasted
cpu cycles it has cost my system by forcing packages to compile with -g even
though those same binaries will be stripped later of this costly debugging
information.
Now, what I want to propose, is not a change so much
47 matches
Mail list logo
