weekly policy summary

1999-09-10 Thread Joey Hess
Here's what's been happening on debian-policy this week. Old /usr/share/doc proposals have been removed from this list. Note: for details of the policy process, see http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/policy/ch3.html. Also, this summary is available on the web at http://kitenet.net/~joey/policy-weekl

Bug#43787: well, here it is: alternate proposal (was: changed title...)

1999-09-10 Thread Ben Collins
I don't mind this proposal as long as it satisfies everyone. I'll redo mine to match Marcus's suggested one if I don't hear any complaints. Something like this for the options?: -- CFLAGS := -O2 INSTALL := install -s ifneq (,$(findstring $(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS),debug)) CFLAGS +=

Re: Bug#43529: debian-policy: mail locking in Debian is _not_ NFS safe

1999-09-10 Thread Raul Miller
On Fri, Sep 10, 1999 at 11:46:05AM +0200, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote: > Bad idea. Why do you want to share a mail spool over NFS? Because > there's another machine that wants to access the mail, or the mail > is stored on another machine and you want to access it. That other > machine might well

Bug#43529: debian-policy: mail locking in Debian is _not_ NFS safe

1999-09-10 Thread Raul Miller
On Fri, Sep 10, 1999 at 01:32:33PM +0200, Roland Rosenfeld wrote: > There are some disadvantages with this proposal: ... You're right: there are resource consumption costs. However, when measured against lost or damaged mail issues, these are probably worth incurring. > > The bad side of this is

Bug#43787: well, here it is: alternate proposal (was: changed title...)

1999-09-10 Thread Marcus Brinkmann
Hi, Raul suggested to mention core dumps, which is indeed a good idea. I extended this to give a general rationale for debugging symbols. I suggest the following wording. Raul, does this cover what you head in mind? if not, can you alternate it and suggest a different wording? Replace: +

Re: Bug#43529: debian-policy: mail locking in Debian is _not_ NFS safe

1999-09-10 Thread Roland Rosenfeld
On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Raul Miller wrote: > Can we get liblockfile's program an routines to reliably *fail* when > it's locking an nfs file? Yes. Kernel 2.2.* on the client machine caches the file contents and so doesn't note when the file was changed on the server. Without fcntl() locking (liblo

Re: Bug#43529: debian-policy: mail locking in Debian is _not_ NFS safe

1999-09-10 Thread Philip Hands
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Can we get liblockfile's program an routines to reliably *fail* when > it's locking an nfs file? > > If so, perhaps we can recommend Maildir/ for people who need to > put mail on an nfs partition. > > The bad side of this is that it requires some very s

Re: Bug#43529: debian-policy: mail locking in Debian is _not_ NFS safe

1999-09-10 Thread Miquel van Smoorenburg
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Can we get liblockfile's program an routines to reliably *fail* when >it's locking an nfs file? Sure. >If so, perhaps we can recommend Maildir/ for people who need to >put mail on an nfs partition. Bad idea. Why do you wan

Re: Bug#43529: debian-policy: mail locking in Debian is _not_ NFS safe

1999-09-10 Thread Raul Miller
Can we get liblockfile's program an routines to reliably *fail* when it's locking an nfs file? If so, perhaps we can recommend Maildir/ for people who need to put mail on an nfs partition. The bad side of this is that it requires some very specific documentation, and it's an extra admin headache

Bug#43787: well, here it is: alternate proposal (was: changed title...)

1999-09-10 Thread Marcus Brinkmann
On Fri, Sep 10, 1999 at 04:28:08AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > > I have written down what I think to be a better proposal Of course, because I am utterly stupid, I forgot to attach the beast. --- policy.sgml.old Fri Sep 10 03:45:13 1999 +++ policy.sgml Fri Sep 10 04:10:28 1999 @@ -1966,

Bug#43787: alternate proposal (was: changed title...)

1999-09-10 Thread Marcus Brinkmann
Hello, I have written down what I think to be a better proposal, which is based on Bens but ended up a bit more concise ;). However, I am not asking for seconds. I hope nobody is offended by this, I just try to be more constructive and productive. I see considerable progress in this discussion, a

Re: Bug#43787: changed title, and remade the proposed change

1999-09-10 Thread Raul Miller
On Fri, Sep 10, 1999 at 01:25:25AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > Mmh. I see your point. What about having "debug" and "strip"? This would > allow for: > > DEB_DEBUG_OPTION=debug nostrip # Build debug packages. > DEB_DEBUG_OPTION=debug # Build debug files, but strip them in package. > >