On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 12:48:15PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 21-May-00, 04:01 (CDT), Anthony Towns wrote:
> >
> >
> > - must meet all policy requirements presented in this
> > + should meet all policy requirements presented in this
> >
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.1.1.1
The line "Debian uses the serial device /dev/tty" should read
"Debian uses the serial device /dev/ttyS".
David
Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, May 19, 2000 at 05:27:48PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> > | Is there any naming convention for debian-specific documentation
> > | packages? I would have expected such things to be called debian-blah,
> > | similar to debian-policy.
> >
> > What d
On Fri, May 19, 2000 at 05:27:48PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> | Is there any naming convention for debian-specific documentation
> | packages? I would have expected such things to be called debian-blah,
> | similar to debian-policy.
>
> What do folks think?
I've long wanted to see that! The prim
> Hi good people,
>
> There are all sorts of daemons for various services in Debian, and there are
> services that have several daemons, and therefore several packages. To
> enable smoother transitions from one daemon to another, we have instated
> virtual packages which these packages can provide
I second this proposal. I also suggest the following changes, but won't
retract my second if they are not made.
On 21-May-00, 04:01 (CDT), Anthony Towns wrote:
>
>
> - must meet all policy requirements presented in this
> + should meet all policy
Just a thought on the fingerd thread. What about having a general policy
for network services in that perform a function. Basically it would say
something like:
A package which provides a network service can opt to Provide this
service via a virtual package. The name of the virtual
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | Is there any naming convention for debian-specific documentation
> | packages? I would have expected such things to be called debian-blah,
> | similar to debian-policy.
>
> What do folks think?
I fully agree with Joey's comments on the proposal.
On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 10:42:09AM +0200, Petr Cech wrote:
> On Sun, May 21, 2000 at 01:10:52AM -0400 , Branden Robinson wrote:
> > At any rate, this thread is moronic.
> >
> > 1) DFSG-free packages that depend only on packages in main should go in
> > main.
> >
> > 2) DFSG-free packages that de
On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 09:28:35PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 01:25:06PM +0200, Radovan Garabik wrote:
> >
> > after uninstalling both fingerd and cfingerd my /etc/inetd.conf contains:
> > #:INFO: Info services
> > finger stream tcp nowait nobody /usr/sbin/t
On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 09:27:10PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > You can't remove your entry selectively: update-inetd --remove will remove
> > all finger-related entries, because the --pattern option doesn't work with
> > --remove.
> Wrong. the argument to --remove is the pattern.
Doh! Maybe I wa
On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 01:25:06PM +0200, Radovan Garabik wrote:
>
> after uninstalling both fingerd and cfingerd my /etc/inetd.conf contains:
> #:INFO: Info services
> finger stream tcp nowait nobody /usr/sbin/tcpd
> /usr/sbin/in.fingerd
> ## finger stream tcp nowai
On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 01:16:03PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
>
> You can't remove your entry selectively: update-inetd --remove will remove
> all finger-related entries, because the --pattern option doesn't work with
> --remove. Funny thing is, it doesn't abort with an error because of false
> arg
On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 08:50:09PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 12:44:32PM +0200, Radovan Garabik wrote:
> >
> > the point is, unless there is some hairy and complicated testing in
> > (pre|post)(inst|rm), the best solution is to make all finger daemons
> > conflict with eac
On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 12:44:32PM +0200, Radovan Garabik wrote:
> it does not remove itself from /etc/inetd.conf, just
> comments out
This is another one of those beautiful misfeatures of update-inetd that
confuse everyone using it in packages. update-inetd be
(Trimmed to just debian-policy. Why did you mail to both debian-devel
and debian-policy? That defeats the purpose of having a policy list.)
On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 12:37:43PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> But if it's that easy to implement, and there is someone to do it, why not
> allow it in pota
On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 12:44:32PM +0200, Radovan Garabik wrote:
>
> the point is, unless there is some hairy and complicated testing in
> (pre|post)(inst|rm), the best solution is to make all finger daemons
> conflict with each other. At least until there is some other way of dealing
> with /etc
Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 08:42:42AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > I can (and will, if allowed) do as many NMUs as necessary to get this
> > > done.
> > > Since it should be done in potato, too, I'm sending this to Richard to ask
> > > can I/we upload changed packages in fr
On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 08:42:42AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > I can (and will, if allowed) do as many NMUs as necessary to get this done.
> > Since it should be done in potato, too, I'm sending this to Richard to ask
> > can I/we upload changed packages in frozen. We have one full week to do
On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 07:47:45PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 11:43:51AM +0200, Radovan Garabik wrote:
> >
> > no, it's cfingerd that it broken - it happily removes entries, not noticing
> > if they were made by cfingerd or anything else (at least did when I was
> > packagi
On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 10:26:16AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > Since there's not much point in running a fingerd on a non-standard port (at
> > least I haven't seen done anywhere, or a finger program that can query
> > different ports), it would seem appropriate to make these packages provide
> >
On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 11:43:51AM +0200, Radovan Garabik wrote:
>
> no, it's cfingerd that it broken - it happily removes entries, not noticing
> if they were made by cfingerd or anything else (at least did when I was
> packaging efingerd, a long time ago)
> Or is this preferrable behaviour?
Tha
On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 07:38:09PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Radovan Garabik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > It would not be better. I had to add the Conflict line because otherwise
> > you would install efingerd over (e.g.) cfinger, and either it would
> > remove cfinger from /etc/inetd.conf,
Radovan Garabik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It would not be better. I had to add the Conflict line because otherwise
> you would install efingerd over (e.g.) cfinger, and either it would
> remove cfinger from /etc/inetd.conf, and when you removed cfinger it
> happily deleted efingerd entry, or
On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 01:48:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 10:26:16AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > On Sun, May 21, 2000 at 04:13:43PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > > Since there's not much point in running a fingerd on a non-standard port
> > > (at
> > > least I haven
Josip Rodin wrote:
> I can (and will, if allowed) do as many NMUs as necessary to get this done.
> Since it should be done in potato, too, I'm sending this to Richard to ask
> can I/we upload changed packages in frozen. We have one full week to do it,
> which should be enough (these packages aren't
On 21-May-00, 23:25 (CDT), "Stephen R. Gore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Greenland wrote:
> > Actually, if there is an INSTALL type document, I usually don't include
> > it in the package. The user doesn't need to know how to configure and
> > compile the softwarer -- that's the major point
27 matches
Mail list logo
