Re: Bug#132767: debsum support should be mandatory

2002-02-07 Thread Manoj Srivastava
>>"Jason" == Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Jason> debsums is a poor and incomplete solution. The best thing is Jason> to have dpkg compute+store the same data when the package is Jason> unpacked on the fly. Then we don't bloat the archive, the Jason> feature can be turned on/off,

Re: Bug#132767: debsum support should be mandatory

2002-02-07 Thread Manoj Srivastava
>>"Matthew" == Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Matthew> All rpm-based systems support rpm --verify. Having debsums Matthew> support optional makes debian an inferior distribution in Matthew> this aspect. Making DEBIAN/md5sums required rather than Matthew> optional would rectify th

Re: Bug#132621: debian-policy: /etc/init.d _must_ be conffiles (not should)

2002-02-07 Thread Manoj Srivastava
>>"Josip" == Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Josip> On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 11:55:47AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> Package: debian-policy >> Version: 3.5.6.0 >> Severity: normal >> >> >>"Josip" == Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Josip> This is actually an RC bug, beca

Re: Policy for init.d scripts is not LSB compilant

2002-02-07 Thread Manoj Srivastava
>>"David" == David Pashley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: David> [Checked against Policy version 3.5.6.0, 2001-07-24] David> I would like to suggest the following changes to Policy to make it more David> in line with LSB 1.1. Most text is taken from: David> http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/refspecs/

Re: Policy for init.d scripts is not LSB compilant

2002-02-07 Thread David Pashley
On Thu, 2002-02-07 at 21:32, Manfred Wassmann wrote: > > David Pashley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > [Checked against Policy version 3.5.6.0, 2001-07-24] > > > > I would like to suggest the following changes to Policy to make it more > > in line with LSB 1.1. Most text is taken from: > > [.

Re: Policy for init.d scripts is not LSB compilant

2002-02-07 Thread David Pashley
On Thu, 2002-02-07 at 17:26, Joey Hess wrote: > > David Pashley wrote: > > I would like to suggest the following changes to Policy to make it more > > in line with LSB 1.1. Most text is taken from: > > If you want this to happen you should submit a proposal bug report so it > doesn't get lost. Po

Re: Policy for init.d scripts is not LSB compilant

2002-02-07 Thread Joey Hess
David Pashley wrote: > I would like to suggest the following changes to Policy to make it more > in line with LSB 1.1. Most text is taken from: If you want this to happen you should submit a proposal bug report so it doesn't get lost. Policy is frozen for woody right now. > Each LSB-complia

Re: Bug#132767: debsum support should be mandatory

2002-02-07 Thread Jason Gunthorpe
On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > All rpm-based systems support rpm --verify. Having debsums support > optional makes debian an inferior distribution in this aspect. Making > DEBIAN/md5sums required rather than optional would rectify this situation. debsums is a poor and incomplete s

Policy for init.d scripts is not LSB compilant

2002-02-07 Thread David Pashley
[Checked against Policy version 3.5.6.0, 2001-07-24] I would like to suggest the following changes to Policy to make it more in line with LSB 1.1. Most text is taken from: http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/refspecs/LSB_1.1.0/gLSB/iniscrptact.html http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/refspecs/LSB_1.1.0/gLSB/

Bug#132767: debsum support should be mandatory

2002-02-07 Thread Matthew Wilcox
Package: debian-policy Version: 3.5.6.0 Severity: normal All rpm-based systems support rpm --verify. Having debsums support optional makes debian an inferior distribution in this aspect. Making DEBIAN/md5sums required rather than optional would rectify this situation. -- Revolutions do not re