On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 04:30:45AM -0500, Francois Gurin wrote:
> Minimun hassle/inconvenience is mutually exclusive of minimum harm.
> Looking at the example set forth by some of the other distributions
> (and more than a few operating systems), the reduced hassle of
> installation and administra
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 02:27:45PM -0400, Mark W. Eichin wrote:
>
> > it's an either/or situation (i.e. no way of satisfying both parties
>
> Actually, it isn't -- there's an easy way of giving users a choice,
> and two people have suggested it already (debconf). This seems to be
> the most Debi
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 01:08:31PM -0400, Laurel Fan wrote:
> Excerpts from debian: 29-Sep-99 Re: Packages should not Con.. by Craig
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > IMO that's the price you pay for saying "install a whole bunch of
> > random stuff i haven't personally selected". if you cared, you'd
> > ta
>
> e) Let update-inetd handle this. This might not be enough for standalone
> servers like apache and roxen but it would work with a pop3 server -
> update-inetd -add should notice that there is already a valid entry enable
> with that service and add the new entry with a hash mark.
>
Not enoug
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 02:29:55PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> > Ok, let's bring this back to implementation. How would you propose we
> > handle
> > this? Currently daemons install, set themselves up, and begin running.
> >
> > a) we can prompt.
> > b) we leave everything off and let the admin
> it's an either/or situation (i.e. no way of satisfying both parties
Actually, it isn't -- there's an easy way of giving users a choice,
and two people have suggested it already (debconf). This seems to be
the most Debianish way to handle it - technologically superior, and
avoids punishing one
On 29-Sep-99 Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 11:05:50AM +0100, Edward Betts wrote:
>> Michael Alan Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I really think it's a bad idea to have versioned -dev packages. Have
>> > we really had instances where they have given us any real advantage?
>
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 11:05:50AM +0100, Edward Betts wrote:
> > Michael Alan Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I really think it's a bad idea to have versioned -dev packages. Have
> > > we really had instances where they have given us any real advantage?
> > libgtk
Excerpts from debian: 29-Sep-99 Re: Packages should not Con.. by Craig
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> IMO that's the price you pay for saying "install a whole bunch of random
> stuff i haven't personally selected". if you cared, you'd take the time
> to vet all selections yourself.
In the initial install, i
On Fri, 24 Sep 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
> I think someone needs to write a policy diff. It can use how
> debhelper does things as the reccomended method, without metioning
> debhelper.
The days go by, we want to freeze potato soon, but no policy change is
visible. But we should hurry up, because
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 04:31:05AM -0500, Francois Gurin wrote:
>
> Minimun hassle/inconvenience is mutually exclusive of minimum harm.
> Looking at the example set forth by some of the other distributions
> (and more than a few operating systems), the reduced hassle of
> installation and administ
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 11:05:50AM +0100, Edward Betts wrote:
> Michael Alan Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I really think it's a bad idea to have versioned -dev packages. Have
> > we really had instances where they have given us any real advantage?
> libgtk1.0-dev and libgtk1.2-dev are not
Michael Alan Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Personally, I think it's smarter to keep the development package
> unversioned. I have what I think is a technical argument: libjpeg.
>
> libjpeg has used a versioned -dev, and look at a lot of the problems
> we've had with libjpeg, where months a
> ok. i just don't think it's as big a deal as some people do. more to the
> point, i think that doing the opposite (i.e. not enabling services by
> default when a package is installed) will cause even more problems (and
> confusion and hassle) to everyone else.
>
> i.e. there's a tiny minority wh
> > Ok, let's bring this back to implementation. How would you propose we
> > handle
> > this? Currently daemons install, set themselves up, and begin running.
> d) have something that keeps track of installed services, perhaps with
>priorities akin to alternatives. If there weren't an iss
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 12:52:16AM -0400, Mark W. Eichin wrote:
> > no, but it should be pretty obvious from the description. e.g. a pop
> > server package is going to install a pop server. a web server package is
> > going to install a web server. etc. this should be self-evident.
>
> True, but
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 04:23:22PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Then we'll have to agree where we register docs. I have the
> following directories on a fresh potato system (with few packages):
>
> /usr/share/doc/HTML/
> /usr/doc/HTML/
>
> And they are _not_ symlinks. They get created by d
> no, but it should be pretty obvious from the description. e.g. a pop
> server package is going to install a pop server. a web server package is
> going to install a web server. etc. this should be self-evident.
True, but don't forget the case of an initial install - you pick some
profile, and
Seth R Arnold wrote:
> The install program will scan the list of installed programs, and for each
> package that Provides: service, it will offer a choice of which to configure
> by default.
FWIW, debconf will soon be able to do this, though it cannot yet.
--
see shy jo
19 matches
Mail list logo
