Title: debian-policy´à ¾Ã³çÃýôñî?
debian-policy´à ¾Ã³çÃýôñî?debian-policy´ÃÃà 亸´à http://www.debian.org/Bugs/db/ix/maintainers.htmlÃà [EMAIL PROTECTED] ¸ÃÃÃ
亸¸¦ Ãü°à ÃýôôÃ.ºÃÃÃû µå·Ã´Ã¸é ÃüÃ
Anthony Towns wrote:
> I don't really understand task packages. I'd assume that they're there
> to make it easy for people to do some particular common tasks (setup a
> desktop environment, interact with your computer in japanese, play music,
> do 3d graphics, program).
Right. Have you done a pota
On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> daemon is running yet, but we should introduce one and fixate this in
> the policy).
I'm on it. The code is ready and tested (for rc?.d, but I'll code the
file-rc version if the thing is accepted -- and it WAS designed to work with
whatever rc scheme
On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 12:31:18PM +0200, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Chris Waters wrote:
> > set $(runlevel) # $2 is now current runlevel
> > name=service
> > rcfile=/etc/rc$2.d/S??$name
> > test -f $rcfile && $rcfile restart
> > Simple, cleaner, more elegant, more o
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 08:09:24PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > Gooping up poor innocent init.d scripts, and confusing our poor
> > innocent users, is a Bad Idea(tm). A separate set of scripts in a
> > separate directory, or possibly a list managed with some simple perl
> > tools, is much cleaner
On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 at 11:20, Colin Watson wrote about "Re: All services...":
> around anyway. When people are upgrading from potato to (stable) woody,
> libc6 will often need to know what services to restart before the new init
> scripts are unpacked.
potato -> woody will be an issue because the
On 17 Oct 2000 at 06:36, Itai Zukerman wrote about "Re: All services that...":
> Why should we assume that only daemons from Debian packages will need
> to be restarted?
We're not. But we can't be expected to know about them as well. (not to
mention interacting with them!)
--
Brock Rozen
>
> IMHO libc should handle its various incompatibilies itself, because
> its a problem in libc, not in the daemon packages.
>
Then most packages will not be restarted and things will continue to be
broken. Libc6 cannot be expected to know about all of these daemons, nor
will it. The list will a
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Chris Waters wrote:
> Then each affected package could have a file in /etc/nss-restart along
> the lines of:
> set $(runlevel) # $2 is now current runlevel
> name=service
> rcfile=/etc/rc$2.d/S??$name
> test -f $rcfile && $rcfile restart
> Simple, cleaner, more ele
> [...]
> When people are upgrading from potato to (stable) woody,
> libc6 will often need to know what services to restart before the new init
> scripts are unpacked.
Again, is there any way to detect which running services need to be
restarted, and then to *warn* the sysadmin that maybe they oug
Anthony Towns wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 05:50:09PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>> The checks required to do it this way would probably change between glibc
>> releases. It would be much nicer to have a method that would work forever.
>
>Won't that just mean that the init scripts for variou
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 04:27:49PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> Then each affected package could have a file in /etc/nss-restart along
> the lines of:
>
> set $(runlevel) # $2 is now current runlevel
> name=service
> rcfile=/etc/rc$2.d/S??$name
insert:
rcSfile=/etc/rcS.d/S??$name
> tes
Hi,
Howbout need-libc6-restart (there is a restart already, I think. Even if
not, just restart can be misinterpreted by people using the script.)
Or why not just restart -all- services? I can envision too many little
branches in the code if we add one every time someone doesn't want to
do the le
** On Oct 17, Ben Collins scribbled:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 06:39:02PM -0300, Nicol?s Lichtmaier wrote:
> > > Ok, I'm tired of having to track all services that might need to be
> > > restarted after a libc6 upgrade. So here's what I am going to do. I want
> > > to require all packages that need
14 matches
Mail list logo
