On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 11:56:00PM +, Nick Holgate wrote:
> > 3.2.1. `apply' telling `unpatch' the patch was applied
> > --
> >
> > This is usually done by creating a file named `APPLIED_',
> > which `unpatch' checks to know whether
> 3.2.1. `apply' telling `unpatch' the patch was applied
> --
>
> This is usually done by creating a file named `APPLIED_',
> which `unpatch' checks to know whether it has something to do, and
> which `apply' also checks to not try
On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 11:17:06PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Hi wrote a small draft for directives wrt packaging of kernel patches.
> I'd like to have comments on this. I attach the text version. An
> HTML version is available at
> http://people.debian.org/~dirson/kpatches/kpatch
Hi,
Hi wrote a small draft for directives wrt packaging of kernel patches.
I'd like to have comments on this. I attach the text version. An
HTML version is available at
http://people.debian.org/~dirson/kpatches/kpatch-policy.html/
Regards,
--
Yann Dirson<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |Why make M$
Gah. Do we have to keep cross-posting threads to multiple lists?
On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 01:03:17AM -0200, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > > + `update-rc.d' and the system administrator. Also, requests to
> > > restart a
> > > + service out of
On 31-Oct-00, 21:03 (CST), Henrique M Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd prefer to get this whole invoke-rc.d deal into policy with an optional
> maybe-restart first to fix the worst mess. After it's in policy, any
> developer can propose changing maybe-restart to non-optional and we can ha
Julian Gilbey wrote:
> I (very belatedly) second this proposal.
Thanks. I think I have enough seconds now, don't really remember.
> There's one small change I would make though; see below.
> > + if [ -e /etc/default/bind ]; then
>
> I would change the test to [ -f /etc/default/bind ].
On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 11:52:34PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > #60979: What /etc/init.d/xxx restart does?
> > status: restart stops and starts the program, perhaps we need a
> > start-rc.d script We now are waiting for code.
> > Act
On 20001031T195631+, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> So even though this languished for a month, I would like to reopen
> this proposal and second it.
Okay. I hereby withdraw my earlier withdrawal of this proposal.
It's open again.
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.f
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reopen 72335
Bug#72335: [WITHDRAWN] Optional build-arch and build-indep targets for
debian/rules
Bug reopened, originator not changed.
> retitle 72335 [PROPOSED] Optional build-arch and build-indep targets for
> debian/rules
Bug#72335: [WITHDRAWN] Op
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 12:06:13AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Package: Debian-policy
> Version: 3.2.1.0
> Severity: wishlist
>
> I propose that the following file be included in policy, and
> be referenced in the Policy manual. Subsequently the packagign manual
> package can be t
reopen 72335
retitle 72335 [PROPOSED] Optional build-arch and build-indep targets for
debian/rules
thanks
On Sun, Sep 24, 2000 at 05:27:49PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> There is a problem with the current build-time dependency system.
>
> The build-time dependency system separates bet
I (very belatedly) second this proposal. There's one small change I
would make though; see below.
On Sat, Jul 08, 2000 at 03:03:10AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Severity: wishlist
>
> There has been some discussion lately on debian-deval (and a bit on
> -policy) about init
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.2.1.0
[Just putting in the BTS]
- Forwarded message from Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 13:07:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Andrew McMillan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: section 4.
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 09:22:02AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> I can't help but think though that this indicates a bigger problem
> in our reliance on maintainer scripts - it is not possible to add new
> features without:
>
> - hard-coding the entire feature in the maintainer script
>
> AND/OR
>
>
On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 08:21:40PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 05:42:16PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > So how about modifying the wording to say:
> >
> > Build-Depends, Build-Conflicts
> > The Build-Depends and Build-Conflicts fields describe binary
>
Just going through some really old mails, when I stumbled upon this
thread:
On Mon, May 01, 2000 at 01:59:15PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> It says this:
>
> The system administrator will have the opportunity to customize runlevels
> by either running update-rc.d, by simply adding, moving, or
On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 11:52:34PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
A belated Hi! in return
> What do people feel about periodic postings of this list to
> this mailing list, say, once a month?
This used to be done by Joey Hess on a weekly basis. But it's hard
work.
> #60979: Wh
18 matches
Mail list logo
