On Tue, 23 Nov 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
> > BTW: I hope this clarification about essential will help APT not to be so
> > paranoid by not configuring every essential package just after unpacking
> > them. If APT is changed in this way, I guess upgrades will be as smooth
> > and fast as they can r
On Tue, Nov 23, 1999 at 07:31:01PM +0100, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.1.1.0
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Policy says that any binary must come with a manpage. I would like to have
> the same for packages.
>
> I just looked for a parser generator that outputs C++ code
perhaps it would be a nice extension to list all the config files owned by
that package...
On Tue, Nov 23, 1999 at 07:31:01PM +0100, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.1.1.0
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Policy says that any binary must come with a manpage. I would like t
On Wed, Nov 24, 1999 at 12:12:46AM +0900, HAYASE Shigenori wrote:
> Package: packaging-manual
> Version: 3.1.1.0
>
> There is not a corresponding to
>
> --- packaging.sgml Fri Nov 19 21:53:13 1999
> +++ packaging.sgml.new Wed Nov 24 00:06:41 1999
> @@ -509,4 +509,5 @@
>
>
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.1.1.0
Severity: wishlist
Policy says that any binary must come with a manpage. I would like to have
the same for packages.
I just looked for a parser generator that outputs C++ code and found pccts.
After installation I tried "man pccts", but that failed.
/usr/do
On Tue, Nov 23, 1999 at 10:53:57AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 1999 at 02:54:56PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > But: I just realised. For bash (or whatever essential packages
> > provide /bin/sh and /bin/perl), the situation is far worse: what
> > happens if a package is *removed
On Tue, Nov 23, 1999 at 02:54:56PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> But: I just realised. For bash (or whatever essential packages
> provide /bin/sh and /bin/perl), the situation is far worse: what
> happens if a package is *removed* when the symlink is not in place
> (because the package is not prop
Package: packaging-manual
Version: 3.1.1.0
There is not a corresponding to
--- packaging.sgml Fri Nov 19 21:53:13 1999
+++ packaging.sgml.new Wed Nov 24 00:06:41 1999
@@ -509,4 +509,5 @@
+
--
HAYASE Shigenori ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
On Tue, Nov 23, 1999 at 11:02:24PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> close 50832
> reopen 50832
Huh?!
> +Since dpkg will upgrade other packages while an _essential_
> +package is in an unconfigured state, all _essential_ packages must
I think "Since dpkg might upgrade ..." or "Since dpkg wil
I'm Cc'ing this message to debian-apt, to ask if the following
addittion to policy has any hidden ramifications that might
make it a bad idea.
On Tue, Nov 23, 1999 at 03:25:00PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Nov 1999, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> > +Since dpkg will upgrade other packag
On Tue, 23 Nov 1999, Anthony Towns wrote:
> +Since dpkg will upgrade other packages while an _essential_
This "will" should be really "may".
> +package is in an unconfigured state, all _essential_ packages must
> +supply all their core functionality even when un
close 50832
reopen 50832
retitle 50832 [AMENDMENT 1999/11/23] Clarify meaning of Essential: yes
thanks
This proposal has been seconded by Raul and Espy, which gives it enough
seconds to be an amendment.
(I've changed the text of the amendment to, hopefully, be a little
clearer. I trust it hasn't
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> close 50832
Bug#50832: [PROPOSED] Clarify meaning of Essential: yes
Bug closed, ack sent to submitter - they'd better know why !
> reopen 50832
Bug#50832: [PROPOSED] Clarify meaning of Essential: yes
Bug reopened, originator not changed.
> retitle 508
> >
> > defaults.php3 is not a conffile.
>
> it does not matter whether it is a listed conffile or not. what matters
> is that it is a configuration file which is automatically blow away.
>
> > And notice was made using debconf's facility as a note to state this
> > to the end user that the de
14 matches
Mail list logo
