On Sep 19, Raul Miller wrote:
> You seem to be saying that issueing new policy doesn't prevent a person
> from issuing a package under an old policy and that therefore there's
> no advantage in writing policy so that the new policy still accepts the
> old practice.
Well, it's more like issuing a n
On Sep 20, Andreas Jellinghaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Please provide a rationale. Some of my packages need a static ID (64000
>> >is assigned, the only one assigned so far) because their spool could
>> >need to be NFS shared.
>
>static user id´s are a _problem_ with nfs, not a help.
>
On Sep 20, Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>And my home directory could be NFS stored---does that mean that uid/gid
>1000 should always and forever belong to knghtbrd on every system?
If your site has NFS mounted home directories then all user accounts
are be created by the admin with
On Sep 20, Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What packages need a ID that could be shared over NFS? ie what
>packages *need* a static ID?
The packages related to fidonet. The suite needs both a news server and
a modem, so it's not an uncommon setup to run ifcico on the machine with
the mode
> > As such, I think Debian's system should be altered a bit. I recommend using
> > instead the name "/cgi-lib/" for scripts under /usr/lib/cgi-bin/. This
> > will keep both features independant and not affect the general use of
> > the system.
> >
> > More information about this as well as some
On Mon, Sep 20, 1999 at 10:33:55AM -0400, Brian White wrote:
> As such, I think Debian's system should be altered a bit. I recommend using
> instead the name "/cgi-lib/" for scripts under /usr/lib/cgi-bin/. This
> will keep both features independant and not affect the general use of
> the system.
On Sun, 19 Sep 1999, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> For example, by using reload in the postinst, the downtime of services can
> probably be minimized at an upgrade (instead using stop in the prerm and
> start in the postinst).
s/reload in the postinst/restart in the postinst/
1. 'reload' is not a ma
On Mon, Sep 20, 1999 at 03:59:13PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 19, 1999 at 11:03:05PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I've seen some people claim that the FHS transition issue has been
> > handled, but we still don't have a policy for it.
>
> Didn't the Technical Committee cho
I'd like to re-open discussion on a proposal I made some time ago. The
current policy on the setting of "cgi-bin" tends to interfere with how most
webmasters set up their sites. Most people setting up a web site expect
/cgi-bin/ to be available for scripts on their site. Unfortunately, Debian
u
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 32263 [PROPOSED] Split /cgi-bin/ into system and local parts
Bug#32263: [REJECTED] Split /cgi-bin/ into system and local parts
Changed Bug title.
> severity 32263 wishlist
Bug#32263: [PROPOSED] Split /cgi-bin/ into system and local parts
S
On Sun, Sep 19, 1999 at 11:03:05PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> I've seen some people claim that the FHS transition issue has been
> handled, but we still don't have a policy for it.
Didn't the Technical Committee choose one some time ago?
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>static user id´s are a _problem_ with nfs, not a help.
>that´s why this proposal is: if the user id is read via /etc/passwd
>(or whatever you use), it is possible to sync the user id´s in
>a nfs network environment.
>
>with compiled in user ids it is not p
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>Things like qmail and postfix should not really be sharing queues over NFS =
>and
>hence do not need static IDs (am I right?).
Its not the queues or the data files I am worried about. Someone else
said that this was an issue, but I remain unconvinced. /va
On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
> Do we follow the informal procedure for proposals of new virtual packages?
> Or are they generally just added with little fanfare?
>
> I'm not sure if I should include them in my policy summary.
I think we follow the usual procedures for proposals of new
> >Please provide a rationale. Some of my packages need a static ID (64000
> >is assigned, the only one assigned so far) because their spool could
> >need to be NFS shared.
static user id´s are a _problem_ with nfs, not a help.
that´s why this proposal is: if the user id is read via /etc/passwd
(o
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.0.1
Severity: wishlist
The technical committee has been asked to resolve the issue of what to do
with /usr/share/doc. I propose we actually adopt their decision. I
propose further that we don't bother to have discussion--we're past all
that. The decision has be
On Sun, Sep 19, 1999 at 10:32:59AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 19, Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I think the practice of using static IDs should be deprecated (and
> >packages doing it should get lintian warnings..) I disagree with banning
> Please provide a rationale. Some
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> >My understanding was that static IDs were for packages that did include the
> >code to support dynamic IDs. There is no really reason at all for a package
> >to
> >have a static ID.
>
> Wrong! Lets demonstrate by
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>My understanding was that static IDs were for packages that did include the
>code to support dynamic IDs. There is no really reason at all for a package to
>have a static ID.
Wrong! Lets demonstrate by counter example:
[511] [snoopy:bam] ~ >ls -ld /usr/b
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> >Please provide a rationale. Some of my packages need a static ID (64000
> >is assigned, the only one assigned so far) because their spool could
> >need to be NFS shared.
>
> As the maintainer of diskless, I am curi
Hi,
I've seen some people claim that the FHS transition issue has been
handled, but we still don't have a policy for it. I personally don't
feel comfortable drafting a policy but I will if no one else does.
At the moment, there does not even exist a /usr/doc/lintian, and people
are still dealing
On Sun, Sep 19, 1999 at 08:25:32PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> Yech. What's wrong with 'dpkg -S /etc/profile'?
I suppose I should have used /etc/ftpusers as my example.
However, you're right: dpkg -S gets it right most of the time.
--
Raul
On 18-Sep-99, 23:23 (CDT), Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 01:23:53PM -0700, Seth R Arnold wrote:
> > (Actually, if there is any easy way to use the debian package
> > management system to find out this info, I suppose that would make me
> > more than happy...)
>
23 matches
Mail list logo
