On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 12:56:16PM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
> The resolv.conf handling proposal is separate; I have
Yes is it. We should focus on /run for now.
Afterward we could discuss the resolv.conf issue. For my
part, I find the whole resolv.conf concept flawed since changing
it does not a
Neil Roeth writes:
> Nice summary.
> > * Drop i386 support mostly. 'i386' architecture becomes 'i486'.
> > Start a 'Debian-real-i386' subproject, with a 'real-i386' architecture,
> > but don't require that any packages build on it in order to go into
> > testing or to release Debian; it would be
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 09:34:40AM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On ke, 2003-04-30 at 06:20, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > It happens with unfortunate frequency that a shared library in the
> > archive will be built without linking against all the other libraries it
> > uses symbols from.
> Please al
Hi Lars,
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 09:34:40AM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On ke, 2003-04-30 at 06:20, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > It happens with unfortunate frequency that a shared library in the
> > archive will be built without linking against all the other libraries it
> > uses symbols from.
>
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 04:28:13PM +0100, James Troup wrote:
> Seconded, but:
> + with dlopen(). Packagers may wish to use the gcc
> ^^^
> + option -Wl,-z,defs when building a shared library.
> Couldn't this be a 'should'?
If the
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Seconded, but:
+ with dlopen(). Packagers may wish to use the gcc
^^^
+ option -Wl,-z,defs when building a shared library.
Couldn't this be a 'should'?
--
James
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.9.0
Severity: wishlist
Policy, section 7.6, currently says that for the debian/rules clean
target, build-depends-indep have to be satisfied. This was added as a
result of #164035, since before that time, the clean target was
overlooked.
However, since dpkg-buil
On ke, 2003-04-30 at 13:33, Pedro Salgueiro wrote:
> I want to make a deb package that install files under
> DocumentRoot of apache, but the DocumentRoot of apahe
> can be anything.
Policy section 12.5 would seem to cover you question:
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-customized-program
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>... which in turn
>>allows us to decrease the complexity of /etc/.
>
> By what metric?
Does elegance have a metric?
> You are adding a bunch of symlinks and weird
> things like the proposed resolv.conf handling.
The resolv.conf handling proposal is separ
Hi.
I want to make a deb package that install files under
DocumentRoot of apache, but the DocumentRoot of apahe
can be anything.
For now I'm copying the files to /usr/bin/abc , then
in the postinst I as where is the DocumtRoot of apache
and move the files from /usr/bin/abc to DocumentRoot
of apache
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Not linking shared libraries against the other libraries they use also
> subverts the effectiveness of the shlibs system. Therefore, I believe
> Policy should both be explicit about the need for such linki
On ke, 2003-04-30 at 06:20, Steve Langasek wrote:
> It happens with unfortunate frequency that a shared library in the
> archive will be built without linking against all the other libraries it
> uses symbols from.
Please allow me a stupid question early in the morning. This linking
issue seems to
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
It happens with unfortunate frequency that a shared library in the
archive will be built without linking against all the other libraries it
uses symbols from. Although the glibc runtime linker is fairly
robust and can usually cope with this lack so long a
13 matches
Mail list logo
