-project Bcc'ed only.
On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 11:17:28PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 04:02:47AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 06:19:54PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > > > > Then each section could either have the structure:
> > > > > or we coul
On 09-May-02, 13:02 (CDT), Anthony Towns wrote:
> RFCs have a different goal to -policy. RFCs specify things that get
> implemented by different groups and have to be interoperable. -policy
> doesn't.
Debian packages get built by several hundred different people and have
to make consistent choic
On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 03:48:28AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 06:11:46PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 08:02:50PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > I'm concerned about this because when I tried passing over
> > > "release-critical policy issues"
On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 04:02:47AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 06:19:54PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > > > Then each section could either have the structure:
> > > > Policy dictate s
> > > > Discussion, useful information, guidelines, examples
> > > > or we could me
On 09-May-02, 12:48 (CDT), Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 06:11:46PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > My suggestion for a
> > policy rewrite it to move to the standard RFC uses of MUST and SHOULD,
> > and indication RC-ness in an orthogonal way.
>
> In short, this isn't going to h
Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
> I can assure you I had a lot less time to do stuff like fiddle with the
> BTS when I was trying to get potato released.
And I can assure you I was doing a lot more work on new things while
still working on the potato release than I am doing now.
Wichert.
--
_
On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 01:12:27AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> + If your package has some run-time support programs that
> + are required by the shared library, or some unversioned plugin
> + .so files, that may be part of the shared library package.
> + However,
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 05:19:09PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
> Anthony> The real question is whether maintainers are meant to build
> Anthony> using the features of dpkg, or the ones listed in
> *Sigh*. Let me see if I can dot the i's and cross t
On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 08:02:04PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 07:17:12PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > > Debian development is asynchronous.
> > That's a nice idea in theory.
> It just to be true before we had testing.
I can as
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 06:11:46PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 08:02:50PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > If the dpkg authors would like to hand off some of their design decisions
> > to -policy on a generalised basis, I'm sure they'd say so. It seems a bit,
> > well, wron
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 06:19:54PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > > Then each section could either have the structure:
> > > Policy dictate s
> > > Discussion, useful information, guidelines, examples
> > > or we could merge them, and have policy dictates all in the form MUST,
> > > SHOULD, MA
Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 07:17:12PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > Debian development is asynchronous.
>
> That's a nice idea in theory.
It just to be true before we had testing.
Wichert.
--
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 06:11:46PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 08:02:50PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > I'm concerned about this because when I tried passing over
> > "release-critical policy issues" to the policy group, it didn't work. [..]
> Strawman (to quote lots of
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 05:41:20PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Junichi" == Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Junichi> I think this was discussed enough in -devel already, but
> Junichi> some good points about /libexec was given. I've noticed
> Junichi> that some known good pr
On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 01:57:51PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > No, the purpose of the LSB is to provide a standard ABI and API for
> > applications to link and program against, whether or not the
> > underlying system has the Linux kernel or not.
> It has a strange name for that purpose. Is
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 07:17:12PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 12:12:16AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 10:08:51AM -0400, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > > I don't care about now, I care about the next release, or the release
> > > after that.
> >
On Thu, 09 May 2002, David Pashley wrote:
> follow LSB, I would like to suggest that we add the status option for init.d
> scripts to policy. I would very useful to find out if a daemon is running
That's for post-woody. Please wait.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 06 May 2002 4:16 am, Craig Small wrote:
> Hello,
> I have got bug #138251 which talks about the init.d script and how it
> is missing some nices things etc.
>
> Should Debian scripts be following the LSB and if so, why doesn't the
> policy
18 matches
Mail list logo
