Re: draft proposal for a new web server policy

2003-12-10 Thread Steve Langasek
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 11:07:16PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 03:05:14PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 08:11:41PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > [I am only a by-stander in this discussion, but I have just a small > > > technical point]. > >

Re: draft proposal for a new web server policy

2003-12-10 Thread Bill Allombert
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 03:05:14PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 08:11:41PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > [I am only a by-stander in this discussion, but I have just a small > > technical point]. > > > > I would like to suggest an other naming convention that fit better

Re: draft proposal for a new web server policy

2003-12-10 Thread Steve Langasek
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 08:11:41PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 12:43:52PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > > I'm not sure if there is any benefit to something standard like > > /usr/share//defaultdocumentroot. Maybe there is, if some > > program external to the web server wants

Re: draft proposal for a new web server policy

2003-12-10 Thread Bill Allombert
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 12:43:52PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > I'm not sure if there is any benefit to something standard like > /usr/share//defaultdocumentroot. Maybe there is, if some > program external to the web server wants to set up a later vhost for > that web server. In any case, it would not

Re: Should we allow packages to depend on packages with lower priority values?

2003-12-10 Thread Marc Haber
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 12:56:07 +0100 (CET), Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Because the fact that there should not be conflicts among optional or >higher packages often forces Debian to choose which one, among a set >of packages which conflict at each other, should be the optional or >the st