Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.6.0
Severity: wishlist
Hello,
In chapter 9, the last two paragraphs of the first section discuss
when to call "ldconfig" for packages that install shared libs.
The penultimate paragraph mentions POSTinst and POSTrm.
The last paragraph then mentions PREinst, b
On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 03:44:32PM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 04:04:11PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> > This suggests that one ought to increase the version in the shlibs file
> > each time the ABI is changed, but not change it otherwise.
> >
> > So is "dh_makeshlibs
Marcelo> namely, another tool can present the user with a more
Marcelo> sensibly designed list
itz> But, with this server (and yes, I tried both 4.[01]) I keep
itz> experiencing minor pixel corruption with scrolling. So, I _want_
itz> (and I sure expect to be able) to select xserver-svga.
Marc
>> Ian Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Marcelo> namely, another tool can present the user with a more
> Marcelo> sensibly designed list
> But, with this server (and yes, I tried both 4.[01]) I keep
> experiencing minor pixel corruption with scrolling. So, I _want_
> (and I sure exp
Scott> 'lilo' on the Open Projects Network came into #debian-devel
Scott> puzzled as to which X server he was running, and if it was even
Scott> a 4.x version. Later, it was figred out that he didn't choose
Scott> the correct XFree86 server in the debconf questions provided.
Scott> He didn't know
Julian Gilbey:
> it's just pre-empting the existence of GPL-2.1 or GPL-3. As long as
> /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL still exists, that's fine.
Ok, I have just uploaded base-files_2.2.13, in which GPL is a symlink
to GPL-2.
On Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 12:33:34PM +0200, Jakob B. Jensen wrote:
> So as a user I would prefer that the project does NOT roll
> forward the minimum version number in licenses specifying "GPL
> version X or later" to "GPL version X+1 or later". On the same
> note, I would prefer if maintainers who
On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 11:22:44PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> [ In reply to last Manoj's message ]
>
> Ok, let's suppose that we do things gradually, as you suggest.
> [ I'm trying to delegate the decision to the policy group, if possible ]
>
> Let's consider the following proposal:
>
> The
David Coe:
> Maybe this is too nitpicky, but I'd prefer we name it GPL_2
> (and the LGPL variants LGPL_2 and LGPL_2.1), to be more consistent
> with the way we delimit version numbers in other places.
Yes, this is too nitpicky :-)
One of the reasons we use `_' for packages is that we can use `-'
* Marcelo E. Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010902 04:27]:
> Basically, making the user select an X server is the wrong approach,
> but debconf allows for an interesting possibility, namely, another tool
The input itself is great to hear, but is there a greater consensous for
issues beyond the XF
>> Scott Dier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Case Study
> --
>
> 'lilo' on the Open Projects Network came into #debian-devel puzzled
> as to which X server he was running, and if it was even a 4.x
> version. Later, it was figred out that he didn't choose the correct
> XFree86 serve
> Is this something that should be discussed before debconf is littered
> with too much information that should really have been kept in
> documentation? Or should debconf be expanded into a tool to notify
> users of anything about what they are just about to choose/do?
Also, does by including th
I dont know if this issue has been talked about in great detail, but I
think more than just one or two people have the problem and perhaps a
best practices needs to be set. The tutorial documentation doesn't seem
to cover this in much detail
-
The problem
13 matches
Mail list logo
