On Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 12:55:49AM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> Instead of being slammed for inventing conspiracies where none would exist,
> I would be perfectly happy to be proven wrong by someone providing
> a link to such archives. As so many of you
Previously Jonathan Walther wrote:
> Instead of being slammed for inventing conspiracies where none would exist,
> I would be perfectly happy to be proven wrong by someone providing
> a link to such archives. As so many of you eloquently put, my comments
> about /usr/libexec make me seem like an i
On Jan 23, Nicolás Lichtmaier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Http_proxy and web clients (#54524)
> Nobody else want this? I thought we all agreed on this one...
I'd like to see that in policy, but only if the programs use $no_proxy
as well.
--
ciao,
Marco
On Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 12:55:49AM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> If I could see the archives, I WOULD research this before posting. So
> far I have mostly a gut feeling that /usr/libexec is elegant.
> /usr/lib for libraries! It just seems so confusing to be mixing up
> executable programs with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Instead of being slammed for inventing conspiracies where none would exist,
I would be perfectly happy to be proven wrong by someone providing
a link to such archives. As so many of you eloquently put, my comments
about /usr/libexec make me seem like an idiot be
Jonathan Walther writes:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> So what will it take to get the FHS ammended to add libexec in? It
> seems like a major oversight.
Why? Please justify this.
Matthew
--
"At least you know where you are with Microsoft."
"True. I just wish I'd brought a padd
Jonathan Walther writes:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> I think its time we created /usr/libexec as all real Unixes do instead of
> an endless succession of /usr/lib/program-foo directories.
Why?
Matthew
--
"At least you know where you are with Microsoft."
"True. I just wish I'd
On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> I think its time we created /usr/libexec as all real Unixes do instead of
> an endless succession of /usr/lib/program-foo directories.
Please define "real Unixes"...
AIX doesn't have /usr/libexec
SunOS/Solaris
On 23-Jan-00, 20:17 (CST), Jonathan Walther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think its time we created /usr/libexec as all real Unixes do instead of
> an endless succession of /usr/lib/program-foo directories.
You'd prefer an endless succession of /usr/libexec/program-foo? Or you
want to double or
On Sun, Jan 23, 2000 at 06:48:56PM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> Web searches don't seem to pull up any archives of the fhs-discuss mailing
> list. Is this some private secret list or something? I thought this was
> an "open" process?
>
> Jonathan
Yeah
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Web searches don't seem to pull up any archives of the fhs-discuss mailing
list. Is this some private secret list or something? I thought this was
an "open" process?
Jonathan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBOIu9mcK9HT/Yf
> > Note that I'm not sure setting things in /etc/environment (or /etc/profile,
> > which is a worse idea) really works the way it should. does it override the
> > users' preferences saved in their dotfiles? That would be wrong.
>
> Oh yes -- thank goodness policy forbids such nastiness -- other l
On Sun, Jan 23, 2000 at 09:10:10PM -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
[...]
> Note that I'm not sure setting things in /etc/environment (or /etc/profile,
> which is a worse idea) really works the way it should. does it override the
> users' preferences saved in their dotfiles? That would be wrong.
Oh yes --
> > > I don't think so - indeed policy says that packages shouldn't depend
> > > on environment variables for their correct behaviour(3.9). I don't
> > > disagree that http_proxy as an environment variable is common
> > > practice, but I do disagree strongly that this should be made policy -
> > >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
So what will it take to get the FHS ammended to add libexec in? It
seems like a major oversight.
On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
> Jonathan Walther wrote:
> > I think its time we created /usr/libexec as all real Unixes do instead of
> > an endless success
Jonathan Walther wrote:
> I think its time we created /usr/libexec as all real Unixes do instead of
> an endless succession of /usr/lib/program-foo directories.
The FHS does not specifiy a /usr/libexec directory; adding one would violate
it.
--
see shy jo
> > I don't think so - indeed policy says that packages shouldn't depend
> > on environment variables for their correct behaviour(3.9). I don't
> > disagree that http_proxy as an environment variable is common
> > practice, but I do disagree strongly that this should be made policy -
> > you'd hav
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I think its time we created /usr/libexec as all real Unixes do instead of
an endless succession of /usr/lib/program-foo directories.
On 23 Jan 2000, Chris Waters wrote:
> OTOH, you can write a quick-and-dirty man page that says, "this
> program is not intended t
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Previously Chris Waters wrote:
> > And IIRC, it's not really a policy change; the bug was filed against
> > the packaging manual, no? Should it even be on this list?
> Both are maintained by the same group and have the same versionnumber,
> so in th
Previously Chris Waters wrote:
> And IIRC, it's not really a policy change; the bug was filed against
> the packaging manual, no? Should it even be on this list?
Both are maintained by the same group and have the same versionnumber,
so in this case the difference is moot.
Wichert.
--
__
20 matches
Mail list logo
