On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 10:39:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 12:40:32PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > Frankly, it should be enough to simply mandate /etc for all configuration
> > files, I don't know why we keep this exception for other directories.
>
> Technically, it'
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 12:40:32PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 10:24:18AM +0200, era eriksson wrote:
> > So if a package maintainer fails to create symbolic links from
> > /usr/lib to /etc, is it a "should" or a "must" violation?
>
> That's not a policy violation at all. OT
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 12:40:32PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Frankly, it should be enough to simply mandate /etc for all configuration
> files, I don't know why we keep this exception for other directories.
Technically, it's enough to mandate /etc, but suggesting the use of
symlinks from /usr mi
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 10:24:18AM +0200, era eriksson wrote:
> So if a package maintainer fails to create symbolic links from
> /usr/lib to /etc, is it a "should" or a "must" violation?
That's not a policy violation at all. OTOH, if the program breaks because of
it, normal bug severity rules appl
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, era eriksson wrote:
> --- 5823,5835
>
> Any configuration files created or used by your package
> must reside in /etc. If there are several you
> ! should create a subdirectory of /etc
> named after your package.
I object to
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 02:10:33PM +0900, Akira TAGOH wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 16:55:54 +0100,
> > "BA" == Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> BA> Anyway, if it is a bug in dlopen() or in some Makefile, then it is not a
> bug
> BA> in policy.
>
> it seems that it's ELF sp
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.6.1
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
I am not able to coherently interpret the following text:
Any configuration files created or used by your package must
reside in /etc. If there are several you should consider creating
a subdirectory of /etc named af
7 matches
Mail list logo
