On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 07:58:26PM +0100, Massimo Dal Zotto wrote:
> The lack of automatic installation is the reason why I don't install
> Debian any more for my customers.
Oh, and to clarify: I completely agree. This is, IMO, the biggest missing
feature in Debian at the moment.
But the way to g
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 02:46:17PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 11:41:50PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Sure there's something you can do: forward it on to -devel, try to make
> > sure it's clear what (if anything) the maintainer and you think the issues
> > are, and try to
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 09:56:51AM -0800, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> aj> You don't need an excuse to not mandate something, you need a damn
> aj> good reason to mandate, and a huge amount of current practice to
> aj> support it.
> Is the reason given by OP not damn good enough?
No, not really. When we
On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 09:22:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> > And thanks to this stupid MUST thing in policy everyone's wasting their
> > time trying to figure out how to force people to do things, instead of
> > making sure that there's absolutely
On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 03:27:17AM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Daniel Stone wrote:
> > Oh, and also bear one thing in mind: the virtual host name (e.g. "foobar"
> > in /var/vhosts/foobar) may not have any correlation to the hostname,
> > domain, or whatever. So, please don't assume
aj> You don't need an excuse to not mandate something, you need a damn
aj> good reason to mandate, and a huge amount of current practice to
aj> support it.
Is the reason given by OP not damn good enough?
And is the overwhelming majority of interactive scripts that _do_ use
debconf already not a
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at Monday, December 10, 2001 10:33 AM, "Mark Brown"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Do you not agree that because of the reasons already identified,
>> particularly:
>> * debconf is still relatively young
>I'm talking about the general trend towards people wanting to put
> everyth
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 07:10:54AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Do you not agree that because of the reasons already identified, particularly:
> * debconf is still relatively young
I'm talking about the general trend towards people wanting to put
everything sensible in policy irrespective of
(Taking this off-line.)
Well, had you read through the note properly, you would have
noticed that Webster's 3rd does recognize it, while the 2nd
doesn't; it's a pretty safe bet that the 3rd came after the
2nd. :-)
IIRC, the 2nd was proscriptive, and the 3rd descriptive, with
many purists lamentin
On Monday, December 10, 2001 9:46 AM, Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Of course. Thing is that that's an awful lot of hassle and rather
>offputting so people still want that big stick that would save them
>grinding through it for stuff that really ought to be obvious.
Do you not agree tha
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 11:41:50PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Sure there's something you can do: forward it on to -devel, try to make
> sure it's clear what (if anything) the maintainer and you think the issues
> are, and try to come to some sort of consensus about what should be done.
Of cour
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 01:02:25PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 09:22:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > And thanks to this stupid MUST thing in policy everyone's wasting their
> > time trying to figure out how to force people to do things, instead of
> > making sure that th
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 09:22:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> And thanks to this stupid MUST thing in policy everyone's wasting their
> time trying to figure out how to force people to do things, instead of
> making sure that there's absolutely no reason why they wouldn't want to.
Trouble is,
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 12:16:15PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> - a package has it's documentation in /usr/doc
> - the maintainer gets a patch how to change it
> - the maintainer refuses the patch "I want to have the documentation in
> /usr/doc."
>
> - a package doesn't use debconf for interactio
On Sat, 8 Dec 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
>...
> If you want every package to use debconf, that's fine and wonderful. Go
> make a list of the ones that don't, write patches so that they will, file
> bugs so the maintainer knows about them, then have a friendly discussion
> with the maintainers to m
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 11:11:06AM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 09:37:37AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 03:04:39PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
> > wrote:
> > > You are wrong here. Sample:
> > >
> > > - I want to p
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 12:19:23AM -0500, John R. Daily wrote:
> Possible reasons for mandating policy: insuring interoperability,
> consistency, functionality, and desire to be a fascist jerk.
>
> Why assume the latter when the first three are valid, and
> valuable to boot?
Because the first thr
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 09:37:37AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 03:04:39PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
> wrote:
> > You are wrong here. Sample:
> >
> > - I want to provide a package with a lot of useful bash functions/aliases
> > w/o
> > changing any pr
On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 11:43:05PM -0500, John R. Daily wrote:
> As largely irrelevant data points, my 1955 edition of the Oxford
> Universal, the 2nd edition of the Random House unabridged,
> Webster's 3rd New International, and the 1952 New Century
> dictionaries concur that "dependancy" is legit
19 matches
Mail list logo
