On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 10:30:21PM +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-09-12 at 18:43, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> > Starting and stopping a service should be idempotent, i.e. further
> > attempts should silently succeed.
> If I start something that is already started, I want it to tell me
On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Suggestions are very welcome. And yes before we start that discussion.
> This is needed because sometimes this kind of things are really
> a mess.
Why do we necessarily need two separate dirs for config stuff? Why not just
/etc/apacheconf/config.d for
On Thu, 2002-09-12 at 18:43, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> Starting and stopping a service should be idempotent, i.e. further
> attempts should silently succeed.
I don't agree with that, if that is what current policy says (but I
don't think it does).
If I start something that is already started, I
On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 11:57:25AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> I thought (as outlined in a related bugreport, although my words in
> >> this report were a bit confused) that the policy should have made the
> >> binary-arch target mandatory, so that the atobuilders could know from
> >> t
On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 04:06:17PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 04:45:44PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> >
> > autobuilders might well just call "debian/rules binary-arch" and
> > everything should work. What autobuilders actually do, I don't know.
>
> Note that binary* r
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I feel it is very important every init script behave the same. However the
> wording of section 10.3.2 is confusing:
>
>The init.d scripts should ensure that they will behave sensibly if invoked
>with start when the service is already running,
On Sun, 08 Sep 2002 at 00:34:49 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Perusuant to my message earlier, there are the first set of
> pending bug reports
...
> * #143941: define a usable character set for description/maintainer
>* name
> etc.
> Package: debian-policy;
>>"Julian" == Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Julian> On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 10:02:21PM +0200, Yann Dirson wrote:
>> I couldn't find in policy 3.5.7.0 any requirement that would allow
>> an autobuilder to know it should call "debian/rules build-arch"
>> instead of "debian/rules buil
Hi
Some time ago I posted my early draft of an apache/webapp proposal.
I have now posted it again on the apache list. Because of the lack
of complaints there (yes I think it might need one or two) I post
it here too (before I go to debian-devel and get flamed^M..discussed).
The url is:
http://ww
On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 04:45:44PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> autobuilders might well just call "debian/rules binary-arch" and
> everything should work. What autobuilders actually do, I don't know.
Note that binary* require root (or fakeroot) to build the .deb,
whereas build* doesn't require
Yann Dirson wrote:
> I couldn't find in policy 3.5.7.0 any requirement that would allow an
> autobuilder to know it should call "debian/rules build-arch" instead
> of "debian/rules build", prior to call "fakeroot debian/rules binary-arch".
>
> I thought (as outlined in a related bugreport, although
On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 10:02:21PM +0200, Yann Dirson wrote:
> I couldn't find in policy 3.5.7.0 any requirement that would allow an
> autobuilder to know it should call "debian/rules build-arch" instead
> of "debian/rules build", prior to call "fakeroot debian/rules binary-arch".
>
> I thought (a
12 matches
Mail list logo
