Greg Stark wrote:
> I would have to think about the implications of this change. Wouldn't the Xaw*
> packages break with this too?
Not in any way I can think of.
> > Then the proposed lintian check would make sense
>
> I'm missing the link, how does this follow from your proposal?
The proposal
Seth R Arnold wrote:
> On one of our web servers could be a list of binaries in the traditional
> PATH without manpages. People could sign up for working on a manpage for a
> binary. (Perhaps `executable' is the correct phrase? :)
Such a list has existed for a long time, see the lintain report pag
On 1 Feb 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> __> zgrep /usr/share/apache/icons
> /var/spool/mirror/dists/potato/Contents-i386.gz
IIRC the contents files do not have leading /'s - particularly now that my
patch to remove the ./ has been applied.
Jason
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 09:19:26AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> Raul> The simple solution to letting the administrator know the
> Raul> package which created the file (which you already see in
> Raul> place here) is to ensure that the path name has the package
> Raul> name clearly embe
>>"Brian" == Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> And what about files that "belong" to multiple packages?
Raul> [And, how do you ensure the fresh install of a new such
Raul> package when the old one has been running for some time?]
5 matches
Mail list logo
