Re: conffiles in /etc/default

2001-06-17 Thread Anthony Towns
On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 05:36:34PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > > Does this change have a rationale (and if so, could it be included in a > > footnote), or should it be reverted? > The file is expected to be changed, which would trigger the 'get the new > version?' prompt. Trying to reduce

RE: conffiles in /etc/default

2001-06-17 Thread Sean 'Shaleh' Perry
> Does this change have a rationale (and if so, could it be included in a > footnote), or should it be reverted? > The file is expected to be changed, which would trigger the 'get the new version?' prompt. Trying to reduce those prompts seems like a good idea. Not sure if that is the rationale

conffiles in /etc/default

2001-06-17 Thread Anthony Towns
Hello world, Policy section 10.3.2 (version 3.5.5.0), says, among other things: [...] To ease the burden on the system administrator, such configurable values should not be placed directly in the script. Instead, they should be placed in a file in `/etc/default', which typical

Processed: accepted

2001-06-17 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > retitle 98291 [ACCEPTED 16/06/2001] Clarifying FHS policy Bug#98291: [AMENDMENT 09/06/2001] Clarifying FHS policy Changed Bug title. > forwarded 98291 debian-policy@lists.debian.org Bug#98291: [ACCEPTED 16/06/2001] Clarifying FHS policy Noted your stat

Bug#100631: Seconded Re: Bug#100631: [PROPOSAL] Restrict http access to /usr/share/doc

2001-06-17 Thread Arthur Korn
Hi Seconded Steve Greenland schrieb: > --- policy.sgml.origTue Jun 12 11:27:48 2001 > +++ policy.sgml Tue Jun 12 11:34:47 2001 > @@ -6494,6 +6494,13 @@ > http://localhost/doc/package/filename > > > + > +The web server should restri