On 20-Jun-00, 17:00 (CDT), Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 10:08:30AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > Rationale: this is because an admin might edit a conffile without
> > updating the links, resulting in an inconsistent system.
>
> I don't believe that this is t
Your message dated Tue, 20 Jun 2000 23:23:19 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#30122: [REJECTED] Fix bad advice about conffile management
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> This list is provided for reference only and may not be complete.
>
> Subpolicy Package Location
> - ---
>
> Emacs policyemacsen-common /usr/doc/emacsen-common/
> Perl policy
Your message dated Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:47:13 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#29770: [REJECTED] Differentiate between conffile and
configuration file in policy
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has bee
Your message dated Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:46:15 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#27869: [REJECTED] Icon location policy
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:44:45 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#27205: [REJECTED] Daemons should run as root only if
really needed
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
I
Your message dated Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:35:00 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#26915: [OLD PROPOSAL] Debian Logo License
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it
The suggestion was to include all subpolicies in the debian-policy
package. At present there are two subpolicies included in the -policy
package: the menu policy and the mime policy.
Lots of good points were made both in favour and against this
proposal. The best compromise reached seems to be t
You wrote:
>Programs whose authors encourage the user to make donations are fine
>for the main distribution, provided that the authors do not claim that
>not donating is immoral, unethical, illegal or something similar;
>otherwise they must go in contrib (or non-free, if even distr
On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 10:08:30AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 09:50:58AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > OK, so where do we stand on this one?
>
> > The proposal is to add a requirement to policy (Ron's wording):
>
> > A package may not make hard links to conffiles.
>
Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > minor semantics, yeah.. but only config files that are to be deleted then
> > recreated, or renamed, (most of them ;) fall victim to this..
> > if only the _contents_ are changed then the link should be ok..
>
> but is not in fact correct, as if you have conffile /etc/foo,
> "Martin" == Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Martin> Julian Gilbey wrote:
>> Here's an issue. About two years ago there was a proposal that
>> the default httpd setup should not allow /usr/doc to be
>> remotely accessible, as it's a huge security risk. (Yes, we're
Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Here's an issue. About two years ago there was a proposal that the
> default httpd setup should not allow /usr/doc to be remotely
> accessible, as it's a huge security risk. (Yes, we're talking about a
> small amount of "security through obscurity" here, but we don't need
>
On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 02:35:45PM +0200, Petr Cech wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 09:58:01AM +0100 , Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > Here's an issue. About two years ago there was a proposal that the
> > default httpd setup should not allow /usr/doc to be remotely
> > accessible, as it's a huge securi
On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 09:50:58AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> OK, so where do we stand on this one?
> The proposal is to add a requirement to policy (Ron's wording):
> A package may not make hard links to conffiles.
> Rationale: This is because hardlinks are likely to point to the old
>
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy
Module name:debian-policy
Changes by: jdg Tue Jun 20 08:31:33 PDT 2000
Modified files:
. : upgrading-checklist.html
debian : changelog control rules
Added files:
. : mm1.32-patch
Log messag
On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 09:13:47AM -0400, Steve Robbins wrote:
> > Here's an issue. About two years ago there was a proposal that the
> > default httpd setup should not allow /usr/doc to be remotely
> > accessible, as it's a huge security risk. (Yes, we're talking about a
> > small amount of "sec
I would be nice to have a parsable Author field such that our
package web pages could list upstream authors (perhaps with a
name and no email if the author doesn't want to get too much
emails too easily).
But such a text field probably belongs in the control file, not
the copyright file.
Peter
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Here's an issue. About two years ago there was a proposal that the
> default httpd setup should not allow /usr/doc to be remotely
> accessible, as it's a huge security risk. (Yes, we're talking about a
> small amount of "security through obscurity" her
On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 09:58:01AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Here's an issue. About two years ago there was a proposal that the
> default httpd setup should not allow /usr/doc to be remotely
> accessible, as it's a huge security risk. (Yes, we're talking about a
> small amount of "security th
On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 07:48:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 09:50:58AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > The proposal is to add a requirement to policy (Ron's wording):
> > A package may not make hard links to conffiles.
>
> Shouldn't this be in the packaging manual, r
Hello Wichert!
This bug report was originally made against the base-passwd package as
a critical bug. It was then transferred to -policy and eventually
rejected.
Please could you look at it and let me know whether you think it
should be acted upon or closed.
Thanks,
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-
On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 09:58:01AM +0100 , Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Here's an issue. About two years ago there was a proposal that the
> default httpd setup should not allow /usr/doc to be remotely
> accessible, as it's a huge security risk. (Yes, we're talking about a
> small amount of "security t
Your message dated Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:16:34 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line #26159: [OLD PROPOSAL] Contact address for virtual package
name list
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If
On Jun 20, Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Where do we go from here? Do we steam ahead and make it policy or
>what?
Yes, please.
--
ciao,
Marco
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 11094 wishlist
Bug#11094: [PROPOSAL] Policy should mention that serial lines require
UUCP-style locking
Severity set to `wishlist'.
> retitle 11094 [PROPOSAL] Policy should mention that serial lines require
> UUCP-style locking
Bug#11094: [P
On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 09:50:58AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> The proposal is to add a requirement to policy (Ron's wording):
> A package may not make hard links to conffiles.
Shouldn't this be in the packaging manual, rather than policy per se?
I mean, symlinks to conffiles are broken if yo
Your message dated Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:58:50 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line #25533: [OLD PROPOSAL] Debian-policy should probably contain
the FHS standard
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
Your message dated Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:40:34 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#21585: /etc/init.d/
OK, so where do we stand on this one?
The proposal is to add a requirement to policy (Ron's wording):
A package may not make hard links to conffiles.
Rationale: This is because hardlinks are likely to point to the old
config files after an upgrade, which is probably not the intended
behav
Here's an issue. About two years ago there was a proposal that the
default httpd setup should not allow /usr/doc to be remotely
accessible, as it's a huge security risk. (Yes, we're talking about a
small amount of "security through obscurity" here, but we don't need
to hand crackers this informat
On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 02:46:33AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 10:40:41AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Copyright: Joe Programmer and Bob Hacker, 1996-1999
> > What if you have as many copyright holders as dosemu?
Then you li
On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 03:18:12PM -0700, Brian F. Kimball wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 11:03:43AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > Copyright: Joe Programmer and Bob Hacker, 1996-1999
> > License: GPL
> > License-details: see /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL
> What if the license doesn't have a n
33 matches
Mail list logo
