On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 12:41:22PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:56:41 -0500, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > If Debian ever hopes to have a policy beyond "all remaining uids and
> > gids are reserved for local use", it's important to stake our claim
> > *bef
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:56:41 -0500, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> If Debian ever hopes to have a policy beyond "all remaining uids and
> gids are reserved for local use", it's important to stake our claim
> *before* 32-bit ids are universally supported -- that is, before
> they're in
On 01 Jul 2003 16:51:11 -0400, Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, 2003-07-01 at 10:41, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> severity 197835 wishlist severity 197835 fixed retitle 197835
>> [FAILED]: integrated environments are allowed thanks
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Far from reaching close consensus
If Debian ever hopes to have a policy beyond "all remaining uids and
gids are reserved for local use",
I, for one, don't want too much of a policy beyond that. Debian should
not be in the business of "staking claim" on uid's. We need a minimal
number to bootstrap the system, but beyond that we
> It sounds like you have a specific complaint, and you're trying to
> make a general complaint.
No, I have no packages in any distributions (would be fantastic, though,
once in life :). I only had a little doubt and feeling, as a user who daily
uses packages and related tools. Anyway it's been a g
5 matches
Mail list logo
