Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.2.0.0
The following patch corrects a misspelling and some other grammatical
mistakes in policy.sgml.
Matt
--- policy.sgml.origMon Aug 21 08:39:22 2000
+++ policy.sgml Mon Aug 21 10:00:52 2000
@@ -2608,7 +2608,7 @@
- The ot
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 12:20:08PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> Things have *not* gone as planned so far. So, saying "stick with the
> plan, stick with the plan" seems a bit myopic. We're already not
> sticking with the plan, which involved releasing Potato in time for
> Christmas '99, IIRC.
>
>
[ Background: Sergio has written support for gnome .desktop files into
debhelper. ]
Sergio Rua wrote:
> > Are .desktop files actually useful on Debian systems? Doesn't the menu
> > system take care of it?
>
> Yes if you use GNOME because it send Debian menu to second stage.
> Otherw
Chris Waters wrote:
> The tech committee's decision makes a lot of sense given their premise
> that Potato was about to be released, and we wouldn't have time to
> change all the packages. But that premise proved wrong, we did have
> time to change the vast majority (over 80% by JH's count) of the
On 21-Aug-00, 15:56 (CDT), Nicol?s Lichtmaier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I expect that when I install a package named doc-, all if its
> > content is going to be in /usr/share/doc/doc-. The Debian standard,
> > whether spelled out in policy or not, supports such expectation.
>
> Tha
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
>> /usr/share/doc/rfc is much better. You don't need an rfc package for that.
>> Look at the doc-linux-html package...
>
>Except that a package named doc-rfc will already have files in
>/usr/share/doc/doc-rfc (copyright and
> > > Except that a package named doc-rfc will already have files in
> > > /usr/share/doc/doc-rfc (copyright and so forth), and so having others in
> > > /usr/share/doc/rfc is a little weird and unexpected.
> >
> > For you. Not for me. And I can't think why it would be for the users.
>
> Becaus
On 21-Aug-00, 14:10 (CDT), Nicol?s Lichtmaier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Except that a package named doc-rfc will already have files in
> > /usr/share/doc/doc-rfc (copyright and so forth), and so having others in
> > /usr/share/doc/rfc is a little weird and unexpected.
>
> For you. Not for
Previously Josip Rodin wrote:
> Since dpkg only runs ldconfigs that are invoked from package postinst
> scripts, the packages would have to changed[1]. That would have to become a
> policy decision first, I think.
One could also consider this bugreport as a wishlist bugreport to
implement triggers
(Side comment: Joey, setting mail-followup-to both the bug number and
the policy list, when the bug is a bug against policy, is really not a
great plan.)
On Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 03:23:39PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Have you read http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte-9909/msg00023.html and
> http://
> This is one of the most irritating things about DPKG and I hope it
> gets fixed soon. I would have put the severity even higher, but
> there's probably some policy behind that. :(
This problem would not exist if ldconfig could be given a parameter to tell
it which libraries it has to act on.
> > > > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 03:14:07AM +0300, Eray Ozkural wrote:
> > > /usr/share/rfc/
> > >
> > > Makes more sense to me. I don't see a problem with the package name.
> >
> > /usr/share/doc/rfc is much better. You don't need an rfc package for that.
> > Look at the doc-linux-html packag
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Nicol=E1s_Lichtmaier?= wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 03:14:07AM +0300, Eray Ozkural wrote:
> > /usr/share/rfc/
> >
> > Makes more sense to me. I don't see a problem with the package name.
>
> /usr/share/doc/rfc is much better. You don't need an rfc package for that.
>
This is one of the most irritating things about DPKG and I hope it
gets fixed soon. I would have put the severity even higher, but
there's probably some policy behind that. :(
On Fri, Aug 11, 2000 at 03:44:08PM -0600, Dwayne C. Litzenberger wrote:
> Package: dpkg
> Version: 1.6.14
> Severity: norm
> > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 03:14:07AM +0300, Eray Ozkural wrote:
> > > > > > The RFC docs currently reside under /usr/doc/doc-rfc. The second
> > > > > > doc is redundant, which is also part of the package name. It should
> > > > > > be fixed to be using /usr/share/doc/rfc
> > > > >
> > > > > Ar
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 68981 debian-policy
Bug#68981: dpkg: runs ldconfig way too often
Bug reassigned from package `dpkg' to `debian-policy'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs da
On 20 Aug 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> What is wrong with the plan currently in place?
It will slow down the goal of FHS compliance (inclusing an empty
/usr/doc) even more.
I thought the plan was that for each given Debian distribution, we
should be telling our users to look for docs in a sin
17 matches
Mail list logo
