Here are my notes from the Policy BoF at DebConf10. They're rather sparse
since I wrote them down from memory afterwards rather than taking them at
the time, so others should definitely add anything that I missed that they
remember.
Manoj proposes making each normative requirement in Policy a sep
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org).
> limit package debian-policy
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy'
Limit currently set to '
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> found 592610 3.9.1.0
Bug #592610 [debian-policy] 7.3/7.4/7.6: Usage of Breaks and Conflicts unclear
and contradictive
Bug Marked as found in versions debian-policy/3.9.1.0.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assista
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.4.0
Severity: normal
Hi,
in May there was a discussion about the right use of Breaks or
Conflicts as part of Bug#582423, e.g.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2010/05/msg00012.html
Since then I've noticed at least 3 people on #debian-devel asking
question
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 at 09:28:22 +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
> Read-only mounting /etc seems to imply that it can also be on a separate
> file system (although I never saw such a setup)
Doesn't work: to boot and mount /etc you need /etc/fstab and /etc/init.d/* and
so on, for which you need /etc. I do
* Russ Allbery [2010-08-10 16:47 -0700]:
> Debian supports /usr as a separate file system from /, /usr as a remote
> file system, and /, /usr, and /etc mounted read-only ...
>
> Since these requirements keep catching people by surprise, I think we
> should write them down explicitly.
Actually the
6 matches
Mail list logo
